Harry has seen DISTRICT 9 three times and I am looking forward to many more!!!

Every now and again there is a film so special, so much better than everything else, that it flummoxes you. DISTRICT 9 is that film for me right now. I've seen it three times now and it just keeps getting better.
How is that?
Well, this is a movie that provokes strong reactions throughout the film. It is disturbing on multiple fronts. The aliens themselves are pretty repulsive looking, buzzing with flies - you can tell that they stink and live in squalor... but that they are in this shape, this squalor and decay... that is a shame at another level. A shame that we recognize. Not from previous films, but from the Nightly News. As Jim Kelly said in ENTER THE DRAGON, "Ghettoes are the same all over the world. They Stink." They stink indeed, but even Jim "Dragon" Kelly had never seen anything quite like this.
When I went into this film, I knew that the budget was $30 million. I knew that no name actors were involved, that it was a first time director, who had impressive short film work and who was the man directing the HALO movie for Peter Jackson... back before that fell apart. So, I expected great things, but you know... you never know.
At the budget... well, JULIE & JULIA cost $10 million more. How big could this really be? THE HANGOVER cost $5 million more. How "big" could this film be?
This is EPIC science fiction taking place in a Shanty Town outside Johannesburg, South Africa. This is, to me, the most accomplished, provocative and intelligent science fiction I've seen in this new century. On Twitter I declared that this is the first great science fiction film of the 21st century - and was instantly slammed by people that love CHILDREN OF MEN and SUNSHINE. All I can really say is this, "Have you seen DISTRICT 9?" Because if you haven't. You can't even enter the conversation yet, and this is a conversation that you will want to be in on.
Try comparing this to previous Sci Fi. It doesn't really look like anything we've seen before. Sure, there's elements that you could draw from ALIEN NATION, but this is nothing like that. As one person at the AICN Austin DISTRICT 9 commented, the basic story in some ways resembles an old Francis Ford Coppola film in the 60's, but that was a Fantasy Musical... about as different as you could imagine tonally... although there's some unmistakable parallels. The aliens themselves look like nothing I've really seen before.
Many of you recall that I missed the last 20-30 minutes of DISTRICT 9 at Comic Con cuz I had a prior engagement that I had to get to. For 6 days, my wife and I discussed what we thought would happen next. We were so far off, so completely thrilled by where it did end up, that we literally wanted to see it again, that night. (sadly, we couldn't.)
Then there's the annoying factoid that the film doesn't have any actors that we've seen before... not just that, but if you check the one-sheets... you won't find the name of the actor, whom you'll want to know the name of throughout the film.
I'll get this out of the way real quick. His name is Sharlto Copley. He plays Wikus Van De Merwe. If you check his IMDB profile, you'll find that he's never acted before. That he apparently wrote, produced & directed a movie called SPOON in 2008. I know nothing about this film other than it apparently has supernatural elements and stars Rutger Hauer and was shot in Cape Town, South Africa and that I'm wildly curious to see it.
But yeah... Sharlto Copley is about as off the grid as you get. He was a producer on Neill's ALIVE IN JOBURG - and technically he did appear as a sniper in a moment in that film... his only prior acting experience apparently.
You'll come out of DISTRICT 9 stunned by Sharlto Copley. There's only one other performance that I've seen this year that struck me as amazing as this one... and that's Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa in Tarantino's Basterds. But Christoph is an accomplished actor. Just not a high profile one. Sharlto is UNKNOWN, an amateur. Someone that had no dreams or aspirations to be in front of the camera, he wanted to be behind the camera.
It also seems that Neill Blomkamp's directing technique was all Sharlto needed to add the layers of nuance that many of the most accomplished actors lack in even the best of movies. You'll be fascinated, mortified, offended by Sharlto's character in the first twenty minutes - and if I tell you now how you'll feel about him later... that'd be a spoiler. But one thing is certain. You'll want to see more of him.
Neill strove for realism throughout the making of the film. He found a real Shanty Town outside "Joburg" to shoot in - and the details he captured are amazing. The actors are hot, sweaty, it stinks - and you as an audience member can tell... visually... that it stinks... that it's disgusting, that on every surface is a vile infection waiting to cause you to get a battery of shots. There are animal body parts everywhere... many... simply were there. Others were brought in to the scenes - to give an "air" to the scenes and it works.
Then there's the effects.
The reason the creatures look like the creatures is that Neill - as a former visual effects geek - he knew what surfaces and looks can be rendered by a computer that would look 100% perfectly real in the environments. As a result. The Prawns, as they're called, look perfect. Not only that, but 98% of all the "Prawns" you see in this film... they were all accomplished through the performance capturing of a single performer. Again. Amazing.
Do not seek details about the story. I only do nationwide screenings for films on rare occassions. I try to do them whenever there's a film that I absolutely hope to see do well. And folks... DISTRICT 9 must succeed.
Why?
Because it is a truly great film. A film that asks us how we'll see future beings? Will we allow the ways of the past to dictate how we'll treat future sentient beings? But more than that, it's great filmmaking. Stunning filmmaking. The last 30 minutes or so -- it's concentrated badassery at a level that will have you cheering.
This is what ORIGINAL filmmaking looks like. What happens when you let a first timer have exactly what he needs to make a film that just fucking blows your mind away.
There's things here - like just how Wikus talks with the Prawn... how he understands them, but answers in English - it feels right. Especially in a city that has so many languages, and whose citizens must know multiple languages to simply exist. But when applied to a film like this. It's fantastic.
Remember how Deckard would never speak the street speak in BLADE RUNNER, but he understood it? There's a degree of that here. And a lot of how I feel about this movie was how I felt about BLADE RUNNER as a boy. I watched that 3 times the day it opened at the Fox Theater in Austin. And this is not BLADE RUNNER, though it kind of is. It's about a civil service employee that has to do a job with a being that the citizenry of his time holds in the lowest of esteem. This isn't future LA, but current Johannesburg, but if aliens landed there in 1982. So what we have is a speculative history that leads up to an alternate today.
Be prepared to feel a gamut of emotions - but know that the most prescient feeling you'll have coming out of DISTRICT 9 is that you are THRILLED. THRILLED to see something you could not have anticipated. Something new and wonderful and truly amazing.
And when you see it again - and you will see it again, you'll hear things you didn't catch the first time, you'll see details you missed. And upon third viewing, you see even more. This is THE FILM of 2009 so far - and it will take something I can't anticipate to knock it off that pedestal. DISTRICT 9 is my favorite of the year so far.

Harry, you almost wona little bit of respect from me with your bashings of Transformers and Terminator Salvation, but after GI Joe, I just kind of feel like you're for sale to the highest bidder. I hope when Inglorious Basterds comes out you will have the balls to give it a fair review. Who knows, maybe that one will be good, but from what I am hearing, it sounds like crap. As for District 9, well, Neil B has won me over with the trailers for this and that Halo footage he had put together. I hope that your words are a little more accurate with this film than with that pile of crap GI Joe

what a predictable ending knew the ending the first time i saw a trailer and going to a screening confirmed it this movies so overhyped its not gonna have any legs if the trend that good reviewed movies bomb and bad reviewed movies score at the box office if anything if it wanted to succeed id want to be getting terrible reviews (how screwed is our culture for this)

2009 has been a pretty weak year (especially the summer). It would be nice to have a real Matrix-esque surprise of a mind blowing movie. After Wolverine, Transformers, Watchmen, GI Joe, etc - when the best we've gotten is another Harry Potter, another Pixar and a reboot of Star Trek (all good) - this year desperately needs something worth paying $14.00 to experience.

I was in the first screening. The one where Harry disappeared during it. I had no idea what I was getting into. There were no reviews out yet because nobody had seen it. I now do my best not to tell people what they are going to see, but to all but push them into the theater seat. My favorite film this year by far.

I was lucky enough to see District 9 in Austin on Friday(thanks, Harry!). I agree with everything Harry said. Its a great film by Blomkamp and a great perfomance by Copley. By the way, moviefan11, why would you spoil the ending of the film? Did you hate it that much? Just for spite? Seriously, I would like to know.

I get your love of the movie, and it is good science fiction, but it's not really EPIC or grand in my opinion.<p>
SPOILERS: I've posted this in another talkback, but my main gripe is the premise. Are we really to believe that these aliens, with their advanced knowledge of the Universe and science, would be 1) allowed to be under the sole jurisdiction of a private defense firm and 2) ignored by the leading world governments? They are simply the most important resource for our species' survival. They can tell us what else is out there, what possible threats we may face, etc. I get that this is an allegory about apartheid and other "wrongs" from our history, but it's just too much to swallow in terms of reality. <p>
My other major gripe was Sharlto's character. As the protagonist, he was too much of a douche to stand at times. Even when he betrays Christopher, it rings false. It's as if he went out of his way to be a jerkoff. His dim-witted reaction to his initial transformation (losing his fingernails and not going to the doctor) is really tough to swallow as well. Yes, he's redeemed but sweet jesus, it took so goddamn much for that to happen, it was more aggravating than uplifting.<p>
I loved the look and feel, and I think there were good ideas throughout the movie (but reducing Nigerians to bug-eating witch doctors was not one of them!). But in the end, a movie like CHILDREN OF MEN towers over this film because it has a tighter concept, is infinitely more based in "reality" (in terms of character motivation and societal structure) and its message was more coherent and well-delivered. D-9 is a solid, middle-tier sci-fi film. In a summer of shit, it shines brighter than most. But that's not a basis for overhyping it either...

le languages to get by in Joburg (or Jozie if you re a local) because as with eveywhere else in SA English is the main secondary language, so if you speak English (or Engels) then you will get by just fine. Though as you say it helps to have familiarity with Afrikaans and Xhosa, maybe a bit of Zulu....

someone has actually made a good SA movie, let alone a good SA sci-fi movie...geez I wonder if hell will officially freeze over now? (this being due to SA films being super shitty for the most part). This Summer has been so shitty, wolverine, Tf2, t4 AND GIJOE HAVE ALL SUCKED horribly. Only Up and Star trek were good imho. There is only this, Avatar, and Sherlock Holmes to save the year for me.....

I love both of those films, and the list I put up was literally off the top of my head and not with GREAT THOUGHT - going through the year, but just putting down the truly great films of the year.
<BR><BR>I love STAR TREK, but upon multiple viewings, I feel the villain is a bit weak and could have been stronger as a character. Though overall, I have no real issues.
<BR><BR>MOON is a wonderful film, but one that I feel prays stylistically a bit on Nostalgia for the look and feel - which were not visually as innovative as I would have preferred. BUT the acting, story and themes were incredibly satisfying.

Does it feel good to shout out a big ass spoiler like that on the subject? Seems like a big ol' cry for attention. Just look at how you use all caps for it too. What a prick you are, seriously. It takes a special kind of douche bag to want to purposely ruin a movie for people. You know what's predictable? You having a very small dick with a wife who cuckolds you with the neighbor.

y is that for South Africans the scenes (from what i ve seen in the trailers) in the townships (shanty towns) are nt shocking at all because we have become so used to them, and their look has become part of our national frame of reference....

I don't want to spoil the movie for you, but I came away with it feeling like Nigerians in particular were portrayed as almost sub-human in their devotion to "eating" things to absorb their soul. Is that mentality something that's common within the region/continent?

Moviefan11, saying that you could predict the end of the film by seeing the trailers is completely bogus. Could you jump to that conclusion, sure, but also a hundred others. Second, that particular plot point is not really what this film is about. Its not the "twist" that makes or breaks a film like Orphan, Perfect Getaway, or any Shyamalan movie. It only serves to explore the real theme behind the entire story: the relationship between the humans and the prawns. You were disappointed by the film, you believe its over-hyped: fine that is fair criticism, lets discuss it. But there's still no reason to spoil a plot point in your subject line other than pure malice.

The filmmakers pride themselves in this being "realistic" and I think they ironically portrayed Africans as being pretty backwards and barbaric. And if you've seen the film, the SA govt. isn't involved in the "treatment" of the aliens at all. It's not about wanting anything to be PC, but I guess your snap-judgments and overreacting kept you from thinking before speaking...

I can tell without looking at more than the ads that this will be yet another indictment of Corporate America - even though it's not set in America. "Don't you SEE?" one of the characters will say. "It's MAJOR CORPORATIONS that represent the EVIL of HUAMNITY!" Then, some dude will make a "selfless" (sic) choice IE one that results in his death or something equally tragic, the aliens will escape and we'll be left with a poignant look at "what we lost." F*** YOU, NELL BLOFELD. I refuse to be suckered in by the promise of armored suits and supposed "intense action" when I know this will just be one more liberal rant. Bye.

Actually, the S.A. government hired the military contractor, MNU, that is responsible for most of the atrocities. So, while the S.A. government is not "personally" responsible for the prawns' treatment they are responsible for hiring and over-seeing the organization that does. The S.A. government is not without blame in the film.

I saw this last week with a small group(and I guess with the first Q&A with the Director and Star). <br><Br>The movie is fun for the most part; one part aliens('the company' the 'mech' at the end) + one part old cronenberg body-horror + a few other classics.<Br><br>But the movie is not as smart as it wants to pretend. Character motivations are questionable at times. The documentary style bookends really did not work for me and threw off the story. In the end it was a action movie that kept looping back on itself to force more action. Mind you that action was really good and the vfx are fantastic, but the story is not refined, complex, or groundbreaking.

Well, first off, I recommend watching the film before you come to any judgments. The ad campaign has been deliberately misleading. Give it a chance, "corporate America" is not the bad guy in the movie as you suppose, but the human race may be.

for the screening in NYC. I'ma see it again loved the film and it's sad that townships in Africa will never get better. BTW I thought the main character was a scumbag.
Now I gotta see this, Ponyo & The Goods this weekend. I wish Neill was at the NYC screening I have a few questions for him.

But I think HaterofCrap was being hasty in his flip-out. Whatever the case, I couldn't get past the world, let alone a government, wanting to hand over alien oversight to a private defense contractor. If anything, the governments of the world would want to keep access to this resource of knowledge away from private groups, and under the control of the public sector for its own benefit. I know the point of this movie was to talk about subjugation and bigotry, but this wasn't the right set of circumstances to be even remotely believable. And what would have happened if MNU developed a way to use the alien tech? Would the UN or the major industrial/military powers of the world really let a private company dictate the allocation of that technology? Heck no. That material would be confiscated under any number of existing police powers. MNU is a work of fiction. There would never be a profit made by their work. Never.

It's a geek site for geeks to discuss movies. It's supposed to be a fun, communal place to hang out. As such, I've got no problems with someone going into details ONCE a movie has opened and people have had a chance to see it, and then it can be discussed OR if someone feels a need to jump the guy, but they at least declare that they're going to reveal a major spoiler.<p>But when a total killjoy like Moviefan11 decides out of pure arrogance that he's going to ruin everyone else's fun...and then justify it with a lame toss away excuse of "just saving people the pain"...that's the pure definition of a sorry ass piece of dickless human shit.<p>Harry, since you liked the movie so much and since so many people here are looking forward to seeing it, yank Moviefan11's post ASAP so he doesn't ruin the movie for anyone else. Then just ban the fucker for being a total son of a bitch.

seriously, good looking out. This was such an amazing film the crowd was so into it and cheering and laughing and reacting to the horrors. Anybody who doesn't like this movie doesn't like film...period

I wish I could punch that guy in his stupid nose. If he was on that line in New York today I think I could take him. I coulda taken on 95 percent of those guys...maybe not that hillbilly biker crew that sat in the front those guys looked rough.

you sir, are seriously making a bad decision. To think that a South African raised filmmaker, a South African cast, with a New Zealand production partner and financing from Japan's SONY... that made a film that is CLEARLY about the horrors of a class & race based society - that continues to have intense societal issues - is giving two shits about an indictment of CORPORATE AMERICA. Well, you're wrong. How a country treats 1.8 million stranded aliens isn't a corporate issue. MNU is a multi-national group brought in by the South African Government to deal with the Alien issue. If anything this is simply an indictment of some elements in society that act in an inhumane way. The United States is never mentioned. Neither are China, Japan, France, England, Germany, etc etc... This is a very localized film. They never touch on or deal with World Media. This is a very SOUTH AFRICA film... dealing with Universal issues of immigration.

Your posts can be deleted and you can be banned. So no there is not freedom of speech here. You can't say whatever you want without it being moderated. Didn't think you needed to confirm what an idiot you were, that was proved in your first post, but thanks for confirmation anyway.

The Prawn weapons alone made this an unforgettable flick, but they were really just the icing for some serious filmmaking. The documentary shell of the film enabled us to view the main character through more sympathetic lenses. Our dark hero Wikus comes off an alien amongst his own family and friends. Even at work his value is marginalized until the metamorphosis begins. His relationships and job are dependent on a strange brew of shrewd gullibility. He is a crossbreed of Ben Richards(Running Man)and Michael Scott(Office). Wikus is incapable of keeping his hand out of other peoples affairs and ends up losing himself in a desperate search for difference. His repugnant character ultimately becomes endearing because of how helpless he is to the transformation. Even with his final swing of selfishness, we are made to care more about his plight as subject than the Prawns he has ruthlessly objectified. His ability to remain the central player in the film becomes urgent for the audience because we are not likely to follow him as Prawn. Worth and watchability are exclusive to the human race. If Wikus goes, no matter how awful he is as a man, even the gentlest, metal-rose bending Prawns are sub-existants and signify the end. Somehow this profound character shift isn’t forced and humanity is eventually reflected through an exoskeleton, but at such a cost. The director mentioned Alien and Aliens being his favorite films at the Chicago screening and District 9 maneuvers similarly to those sci-fi gems. Those movies made me more excited about the human imagination than any silly religion or fairy tale ever could. Alien invasion films cannot be beat as a film-going experience and District 9 stacks up in every respect.

I agree with ya, Yackbacker. Haterorcrap over-reacted, something that happens alot in talkback. You bring up great points about the plot. We, as the audience, have to suspend our disbelief, but the fact that we care or are even discussing the minutia of the back story in such detail is a testament to the world Blomkamp created. I want all those questions you asked answered and explained too. But this movie really just focuses on Wikus' story and really doesn't deviate into the "global" picture. May be we'll get the answers to our questions in the sequel.

There's a lot left on the table that another film can address. While I didn't love the movie, I do take it seriously as an effort. I think another TBer mentioned that it's not as "smart" as it purports, and while I think that's a tad harsh, I do feel like these "documentary" types of films do place themselves in a degree of peril in that they insist on being taken more seriously as a form of realism. Wikus was a bitter pill for me to swallow as a character for 90% of the movie, but where he arrives at the end is a fascinating character to explore. And I will say that Christopher and his son, Little CJ are the shining characters of the film. Little CJ will whip all of your asses on XBOX Live.

I've been telling everyone it's the best sci-fi film I've seen since SUNSHINE, but that film is so polarizing, I often use THE MATRIX because as I said in the other TB, this is a game changing film. You feel it after it's over. Everything that comes after this will be informed and influenced by it. Just like THE MATRIX in 1999. What's it with years that end in 9's?

I think banning should be done more often, like at somethingawful.com, and people PAY to register over there. I know, free speech, blah blah, but this is not THE PEOPLE's site, its yours. Start banning these assholes who spout off intolerant, racist, and threatening bullshit. They want free speech, let them start their own goddamn site. Trolling is abusing that freedom. Maybe with more action like that, it will be more enjoyable to read talkbacks instead of the inane crap I've seen here for years. Oh, and here's hoping District 8 hits Alamo Drafthouse Houston...

I would not want to compete with that little prawn at anything involving computers. As for Wikus, I couldn't agree with you more. Here's to civilized discussion on talkback. Read and learn, moviefan11.

Nothing takes me out of the movie faster than bad CGI. (GI Joe/Mummy 2/any Stephen Sommer's film for instance) It's hard to keep the "suspension of disbelief" when the movie turns into a unintentional cartoon. Do you know what I mean?

a lot of it has to do with what you're going after. Sommers isn't reproducing or working with reality. His vision runs more cartoonish, and it is reflected in his work. That's a style difference. I can take it either way. GI JOE is fun. It isn't about the real world, nor was it ever supposed to in my book. GI JOE isn't BLACKHAWK DOWN and should never be. GI JOE was a cartoon and still is.

Its not a testament to its quality, I just think that the general public will be looking for something a little more action-oriented and not find D-9 to be that film. I'd say it's final box office will end up around $100 million. For a $30 million movie, that will be phenomenal. But what it really means is that the economic model for your mainstream Hollywood movies is fucking silly. I've always maintained we could get a slew of great genre movies for under $50 million. A lot of DC and Marvel movies could have gone this path. I mean GHOST RIDER cost $110 million! D-9 kicked its ass in terms of production values.

Then word of mouth will make it a success. I remember when Matrix came out. I didn't have any interest in seeing it initially. My co-workers were so excited after seeing it later that week, they compelled me to check it out. I was blown away. I told my friends, they told their friends, on and on...It was a hit! I remember Star Wars happening the same way. The sad part is, this could make Neil Blomkamp a star. I'm hoping that stardom doesn't bring his film making quality down like it did for the Warshowski brothers or George Lucas.

Bad CGI takes the element of danger out of the Sommers movies. It may be intentional on his part, but black levels being off and motion being jerky doesn't work in action movies period. VAN HELSING was a prime example of CGI removing all sense of caring or tension.

Well, if we take him at his word, Blomkamp told the audience in Austin he really doesn't want to make a film with a production budget over $50 million. Of course, greed conquers all...we'll have to wait and see.

I agree with you. GI Joe IS a cartoon movie. I meant my point to be about the quality of the CGI itself. Some movies really take the time to "blend" real scenes with quality CGI and it works. Obvious,bad CGI takes me out of the film, regardless of the style is all I'm saying.

I wanted to ask Neill this at the Austin screening, but never got a chance, so I hope you can shed some light: How exactly did Peter Jackson meet Blomkamp and do you think we'll see more collaborations between them?

I have to agree with YackBacker's first post. As much as I enjoyed D9--I thought it was way above average for this kind of film, with a very well-constructed world, a great lead performance and some highly enjoyable action--to say that it's a better sci-fi film than Children of Men is pure lunacy. CoM was more consistent, more believable, more interesting, more intelligent, better shot, better acted, and better written. In my opinion.
This is not me wanting to rag on D9, which I really enjoyed. I just agree with YackBacker that the best terms to describe it are "solid" and "middle-tier". CoM, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. But they can't all be masterpieces.

Is the coolest thing he's ever done. Seriously. I hope MovieFan11's e-mail is flooded with gruesome man on horse pics, or bombarded with lemonparty.org images. Harry, that was so badass of you, I am perfectly willing to eat the shit out of your asshole right now.

I think Moon, Children of Men, Sunshine, and District 9 are the best examples of the sci-fi genre that we have seen since 2000. While we can disagree as to what order we place them, I think they're all "top tier".

Way too much praise for Children of Men on here. Hate to be that guy but it's true.
How many people on here seriously had a taste to watch COM, out of the blue, just in the mood to watch something? Never had that with this one. Dope effects, great plot, not nearly as thought-provoking as Michael Caine's role.

And if it's as good as most are saying then it appears that the trailer WAS fucking with us.<p>
<p>Can't wait to see it even if it was just a transposed meditation on apartheid. But I get the feeling there's a bit more to it.<p>
<p>Also, douchebags calling it a "liberal" Movie and getting whiny because it shows some humans are assholes, or corporations can be assholes. You are a joke douchebags. You are the punchline to Stephen Colberts, Movies that are destroying America, gags and you should be watching Beck or O'Reilly on a continual loop 24/7 for your sins. Partisan hacks offended by subject matter and their own interpretations of it before they have even saw it don't deserve to watch good Movies.

I havent seen the picture yet and Im so fucking stoked Im just trying to understand where to temper my expectations. Was it a problem with the performance? Or, as some have said, he's a terribly unsympathetic character for most of the film? From the clips I've seen Copley looks good and Im so happy about a newcomer headlining a summer film I would hate to think it doesn't work out.

There were enough dystopian science fiction Movies in the 70's and even before then that trod remarkably similar ground.<p>
<p>Is Children of Men extremely well shot and clever and polished ? Fuck yes. Did I watch it and feel here is something I haven't seen before ? Fuck no.<p>
<p>Even the fertility McGuffin feels over-familiar to that type of dystopian science fiction.<p>
<p>So do I hope District 9 will at least feel and be a bit more different than just another human dystopian civilisation Movie, however smart ? Yes.

Harry, I'm quite amazed at the level of your adulation for this film. I may be doing some selective reading of posts, but it seems to me that the majority of the public that have seen the film (myself included last week), seem less than wowed by the movie. Sure its a nice idea, and the effects are solid and what they've done with the production budget is impressive. But the characters, leaps in logic and overall feel of the film left me, and it seems many others) remarkably underwhelmed. I was really hoping to love this film, but everyone at the screening I saw came away saying "meh". Call me callous but I just didn't CARE for anyone in District 9, and so wasn't involved in the story. I'm with YackBacker and many others, definitely not one of the films of the year.

...best move I've ever seen on this site, Harry! I accidentally ruined the end of the Lord of the Rings novels for a buddy of mine in grade 6, and I STILL feel bad about it! MovieFan11 is quite the douche to do that to the masses on purpose! I'm just glad I got to this article late enough to NOT have that pigfucker ruin a movie I'm dying to see! Props, Harry. You did the right thing for the right reasons!

Calling attention to Colbert using partisan douchebags as a punchline is hardly praising Colbert lavishly. It's pointing out that the douchebags are a joke and a gag that we all enjoy laughing at.<p>
<p>It's simply using Colbert as an easy reference point and shorthand for those too dumb and partisan to see the whining for what it really is. Or for those dumb enough to prove the point and fall into the trap of attacking the reference point out of the self same partisan hackery and douchebaggery.

EveryonesReimagining: I may not get the urge out of the blue to rewatch CoM over and over, but I hardly think that's the best measure of a film. It resonated with me very strongly and struck me as a superb piece of cinema, both thematically and technically. I can appreciate that you didn't love it all that much, that's fair enough. Not sure what you meant about Michael Caine's role, though.
<br>
G100: If you didn't think CoM was particularly original, don't get your hopes up too much for D9. It's a really fun and well-made film, set in a very well-constructed universe, but in no way does it do anything more groundbreaking than CoM did. And it's not as smart as CoM.

but to answer your question, The Nigerians are viewed very negatively in Africa. The reason is that they enter most African countries (especially South Africa as its the wealthiest African country) illegally, and then they are almost always involved in drugs, prostitution, scams, and general organized crime. They are generally viewed as being very immoral and untrustworthy by other Africans. Hope this helps dude...

Obviously a well known established actor draws more people and thus more ticket sales, yes! but If a movie is good. It's good and word of mouth can make or break a film. Star Wars in 1977 is a perfect example of that. All unknown actors minus one and I don't have to tell you how that turned out. If movie looks good to me, fuck who stars in it. Just gimmie good entertainment damn it!

While District 9 is admirable in it's attempt the execution is seriously lacking. I'm glad to see that many others were under-whelmed by this film because it's a mess. It has no idea if it wants to be a documentary style film on an intimate level or a high end action movie.
The director has no sense of pacing at all and character motivations are questionable at best. It's no surprise Harry is all atwitter about this film because it's the new "cool movie" to love. We all know Harry mostly spews love all over movies without thinking. I'm starting to believe he doesn't even see them just rates his review by the size of the studios gift package to him.
My full review for District 9 is on http://www.coolshitinthecrosshairs.blogspot.com

I wrote an outline, several years ago, that changes the game on that, the standard alien invasion movie. How? I changed the archetype, by changing the standard ending of these yarns, to something audiences have never seen before...and it is startling--the secret twist. Like "District 9", it can be done on a low budget, and that is the fun of it, and how I designed it. Most writers start a script from a beginning concept, but quickly run out of steam, as it is a one trick pony. However, the secret to a great script, and story within, is always the ending. Come-up with a great climax first, and then backtrack to create the rest of the story, as I have done--creating something very unique in the process.

So STAR TREK isn't one of Harry's faves of the year?<p>
The most hyperbolic review ever written in the history of hyperbolic review writing.<p>
Harry's uber enthusiasm turned up to 11 with a side order of bugnuts.<p>
...and now... 'the villain was a bit weak'... backpedal... backpedal...<p>
hahahhahahhahaha. This dojo laughs at you from atop the mountain.

It has so much hype now .. if this thing doesn't blow me away .. I will go postal on the movie industry .. from a small town in Ontario .. ah nevermind .. it looks good and I hope it delivers on a level I haven't seen in decades.
But to push it against Blade Runner .. (which version lol) is a very tall order.
PS - you have a wife .. we get it

It is a really great sci fi action film. They naysayers on here must be fucking hard to impress if this film is original or innovative enough for them compared to the steaming heaps of shit we have been served up so far this summer this film is fucking raiders of the lost ark. THIS IS A GREAT FILM. its funny, it has suspense, it has fantastic action great effects and effects that are used to serve the story not the excuse for the story.if this film isn't enough to please the guys I am reading on here who are moaning that its average then I really genuinely believe you should give up on movies. if this film isn't enough for you then you have seen too much and you are never going to be happy at the movies again. seriously get a new hobby and give it up.

We all have our own ways of getting pleasure at the cinema. Having high (though admittedly subjective) standards is not the same as being a hater who is incapable of enjoying things.<br><br>
We each have our own ways of getting our kicks. I'd be pretty surprised if I had fewer pleasurable cinema experiences on average than you do. I'm not saying you're wrong to love D9, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong to love CoM and find D9 enjoyable but not great.

the film looks beautiful. really nice looking film. look for me the film is almost perfect.if you want studios to make different films then we need to support films like this. it is an unusual summer "event" film. it is not your standard fare.

i fucking love CoM. Its one of my favourite films of the past ten years. I think D9 is every bit as good as it. I am amazed to read people already deciding the film is about a certain topic or has some "librul" leanings and attacking it before they have even seen it. After a summer of pretty much shit this film sits heads and shoulders above everything else. I want studios to take more risks like this film. I want them to make more films like this. one thing you cannot say is that this is standard hollywood fare. I guess that is what I trying to get at.

Yeah, I totally agree with you about D9 in that respect. Even just the fact that it's a quality action film set somewhere other than the US makes it important viewing. And I also agree with you that it's way above where most other summer films are at. I just didn't personally find it to be a *great* film, and didn't think it was the equal of CoM, let alone worthy of being ranked in the same category as Blade Runner or Alien.

A lot of it felt like improv and turns out it was. In fact, most of the dialogue was. I can't decide if I was put off by the frequent tone change
one thing I HATED was his father in law. cliche and one dimensional. I'd delve further but wouldn't want to spoil anything

Well, not terribly spoilerish-- after the first 5 minutes you'll get what I'm saying about his character. The problem with Wikus is that he is almost unbelievably idiotic. When faced with a very apparent danger, which begins to manifest itself in a very extreme way, Wikus makes some pretty unbelievable small decisions that makes his later ones more convenient for the plot. But probably even to a larger, yet more superficial, degree, Copley played Wikus as a mix between Steve Carell and Luke Wilson and I gotta admit it was really fucking annoying. Copley handled some scenes very well, but he had two settings throughout the movie- douchebag and whining douchebag. It got old... and it never let up until the very end.

Was at the NY screening and enjoyed myself. This is a well-paced, somewhat thought-provoking little movie but it is not "the first great science fiction film of the 21st century" by any stretch. It is a MESS, a very obvious first feature (many tonal and structural problems). I don't think it compares favorably to Children of Men or Sunshine (for one, both were made by directors who had done lots of work in different genres and brought those experiences to sci-fi with dazzling results). Finally, y'all are forgetting arguably the BEST sci-fi of the last ten years (for real) - Wall-E. See this movie, enjoy it, it's a great summer ride that won't insult your intelligence, but it's not a whole lot more than that.

I didn't even have to watch. $30 million with amazing special effects? They cut corners somewhere. Plus, the preachy angle scares me. Movies that do that tend to fall back on it instead of making a good film. Kudos to the smart ones on here that called this film out for what it is.

The subject matter was original, but the execution was TERRIBLE. I didn't know what was going on at all in the movie. There was doublecross after doublecross and the whole thing fell apart. Only the insecure who can't think for themselves call it a great movie.

umm way to yank your own chain there... u did an 'outline' that 'changes the game'?? what a load of shit. an outline means nothing. its not a script, a novel, a published work... nothing. its like saying i've got a good idea for a film... every second geek around seems to think they've got some brilliant story in their head. a great work isnt made just on the idea or outline, its in the dialogue, the mood, the setting, each tiny bit of writing... an outline?! nadda... it doesnt mean shit until the entire piece is completed, published and read AND THEN ACTUALLY DOES HAVE AN IMPACT AND CHANGES THE GAME. sorry to rag on you, but shit, to claim you've written 'an outline' etc is just self important grandizing crap

CHILDREN OF MEN was hard to follow? And if great acting, a smart script and realistic character development = terrible execution for you, then... well, there's no debate to be had, sorry. I thought it was brilliant and I'm pretty secure in myself. Thanks!

Good job remembering Wall·E. It totally slipped my mind, but is definitely up there as far as 21C sci-fi goes. And definitely better than D9.
And interneti -- you're entitled to your own tastes and opinions in film, but if you call me an "insecure person who can't think for myself", I might just be tempted to call you a person who is quite simply incapable of following a complex but skilfully-told plot. Children of Men made perfect sense to me. That makes me a groupthinker?<br><br>Look, you're welcome to dislike the film, but you can't insult those whose tastes differ from your own without expecting to cop some flak in return.

Good job remembering Wall·E. It totally slipped my mind, but is definitely up there as far as 21C sci-fi goes. And definitely better than D9.<br><br>And interneti -- you're entitled to your own tastes and opinions in film, but if you call me an "insecure person who can't think for myself", I might just be tempted to call you a person who is quite simply incapable of following a complex but skilfully-told plot. Children of Men made perfect sense to me. That makes me a groupthinker?
<br><br>
Look, you're welcome to dislike the film, but you can't insult those whose tastes differ from your own without expecting to cop some flak in return.

What is wrong with you people? Sure Wall=E was a great animated film, but it was still a kids movie.
It was not as thought Provoking as you people make it out to be. Entertaing kids movie? Yes! Brilliant Sci-Fi? Absofuckingloutly not!

....even though I get the feeling this could be a very OBVIOUS take on racism in general, that unfortunately seems to have ended up quite racist ITSELF! I just get this impression from some of the comments I've seen. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to checking out the visual look of this guy's direction in this. Oh, and thankfully I missed MovieFan11's selfish post!

Have you really got NOTHING better to do with your life? Would you sit down and watch the same DVD three times in a week? Read the same book three times in a month? No, you wouldn't. And, if you would, your life is dull incredibly empty, and you must be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Fuck off and go switch your lights off thirteen times, you sad bastards.

"MOON is a wonderful film, but one that I feel prays stylistically a bit on Nostalgia for the look and feel - which were not visually as innovative as I would have preferred. BUT the acting, story and themes were incredibly satisfying."<p>
Spot on. Why can't you review films with this level of accuracy, clarity, sincerity, and intelligence all the time? I mean this proves you know something about film (how could you not), but instead you resort to juvenile rantings and long, drawn out, unrelated exposition no one gives a shit about. How you can be so on target about a great little film like MOON and then slather over some of the worst shit ever concocted is mind boggling.

I don't see how anyone can think that movie was well-made, Yosh. The party line has blinded you, friend. I actually walked out, I gave up! It was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. Does political propaganda pass for great film making these days? Wall-E was overrated too, another movie that used politics as a crutch for a poor plot.

The first half of Wall-E is superb...but if you really didn't like the second half (I count myself in this camp) then District 9 is even more obvious in its commentary on contemporary society. And yes, District 9 - although implicitly a metaphor about race - is also a deeply racist movie.
[SPOILER!]
The portrayal of the "Nigerians" who are nothing but sub-human savages will turn your stomach if you consider yourself civilized.
[/END SPOILER!]
This movie is interesting and sparks a good discussion (obviously), but it doesn't even approach the brilliance of Children of Men. I would say...dampen down your expectations a bit and you'll have a good time.
To digress a bit...everyone who is hating on Children of Men is completely deluded - it is VISIONARY. Best sci-fi since Blade Runner is no joke for Children of Men. I can watch that movie over and over...it makes me feel human.

Just curious, why did you expect this film to be epic and grand? Everything I've seen so far leads me to believe this is more of a gritty in-your-face type story - more of a micro sci-fi film if you will.<P>That being said, I'm really looking forward to checking it out ASAP.

It is a good movie, but it's by no means a genre "game changer" in my opinion. It's certainly not a mess, but it's definitely not "one of the greatest scifi movies of all time" either. It has the BSG grit to it, and I'd like to see a sequel. There's potential for more development here, but as someone else noted earlier, this feels like a first effort by a director in some ways.

Cuaron outdid himself. CHILDREN OF MEN was so densely loaded with a great "BRAZIL" meets "1984" meets "A CLOCKWORK ORANGE" very scary, very realistic vision of the future, incredible action sequences, fully realized characters, great political message, a real sense of danger and urgency and to top it all off, it was funny! (Pull my finger!) Sometimes some of you in here remind me of how when BLADE RUNNER first came out it bombed only to be now held up as the gold standard. CHILDREN OF MEN created it's own realistic, futuristic world and filled it with interesting characters that you actually gave a shit about and kept you riveted with it's plot twists and action. COM was a movie that respected the intelligence of it's audience. I just don't get why some of you in here who profess to be cinemaphiles, particular sci-fi cinemaphiles, don't like it.

who the fuck gets on a geek movie site FULL of people who do NOTHING BUT watch their favorite films in the cinemas 3 or more times and bashes them for doing just that?<p>
i know reading is difficult for you but some of us LOVE reading the same book more than once...

Understood. And I guess I have been somewhat blind when it comes to such statements like "game changer" or "one of the greatest scifi movies of all time". Hyperbole gets tossed around way too easily these days; on all fronts.

You don't understand how it is possible someone doesn't like CoM? I didn't know all cine-philes were in lock step with each other on what they like and don't like. Perhaps some people have differing opinions. Geez. What I don't understand is why people take their opinions to the extreme and anyone who disagrees with them is obviously inferior in whatever subject. If you don't like CoM, obviously you must not be a sci-fi cinephile, right? What the fuck?<P>That's not to say I didn't like CoM ... I just wonder about that whole line of thinking sometimes.

ZHLs comments sound like the political extremists on the left or right who must have everyone in lock step with the party line. If you fall out of line you become the enemy and must be viciously attacked at all costs. I know this kind of zealotry (and no, not calling ZHL a zealot, I said this was a step further) has been around forever, but it seems to be more and more prevalent lately, across all kinds of topics. Movies, politics (left vs. right), tech (Apple vs. Microsoft), etc. Kinda scary.

And I love that they never explain why everybody is sterile. IT'S JUST CAUSE THEY SAID SO. It's fiction. Don't tell me everything. Lemme use my feeble little imagination too. It coulda been something in the water. It coulda been a virus. That could have been an easy out to satisfy the whiners. But they had the balls to leave it ambiguous and I admire that. Personally I would like to imagine that it leaves open the possibilty of a higher power. Let's face it, the entire population suddenly becoming incapable of conception definitely has an old testement vibe to it, which is also an admirable bit of fiction!

<p>good movies should just give the materials and the motive for the audience to think by itself.
<p>?if a movie,regardless of how good it is made,is going to give a certain message,to preach in other words,i am sorry but i consider that as a drawback for the movie.
<p>i understand that the director sometimes wants to just express his personal opinions about a matter,but sometimes that leads art to become a passive medium of communication and not an interactive participation between the artists work and his audience.
<p>i believe D9 is going to be a very good scifi movie,but if its true that it becomes the movie itself racist because of the movies subjective portrayal of the bad guys/nigerinas whatever,then i am sorry but the movie lacks points because of it.

I hated Children of Men, There Will Be Blood and The Hurt Locker because they were bad. I don't base my opinions on movies on what established critics think. I call it like it is. I'm not like my stupid friend, who is afraid to make up his mind for himself.

God forbid blacks being villains in movies today? There is a sort of reverse racism in that. It's like when movies show all indians as noble victims with a great inate understanding and in close contact with nature. I swear, next time i watch another depiction of the indiasn that way, i'll vomit. I was the guy who jumpoed in happiness when i saw a disgnified portait of the indians in Dances With Wolves (a movie which also have villain indians, not just whites). but today, the indians in movies are this stupid cliche of nobility that cheapesn them and turns them into cartoons indead of human beings. just watch Pathfinder for a good clue of that.<br><br>Maybe if a negerian being portaited as a vilalin in a movie migth actually reflects soem reality that is happening in South Africa, as in, the nigerian mafia. Don't think that just because amovieis set in South Africa, it makes all the blacks being victims and adorable creatures without malice. South Africa is riddled wioth crime syndicates and mafias, and the nigerian mkafia is a big problem there, the same way the russian mafia is in europe and USA. Food for thoughts, friend.

was a lot of shite, no matter what the fanboys think. A dull snoozefest, and not even hippie Michael Caine can change that fact. I just can't understand why so many of you seem to love it. It's got Clive Owen for fuck's sake! The guy is a plank! ZZZZZZZZ x infinity.

Do you even like movies? How can anybody equate that horrible Transformers movie with truly good movies like Children of Men, There Will Be Blood and The Hurt Locker? I can't even guess what is your idea of a good movie. Good god, man!

not just black people who are bad.i dont have a problem with that,a human being is going to be a monster regardless its colour.
<p>but i thought that this situation about racism,was the same as the one with the videogame Resident Evil 4.where there were black bad guys too,but they were portayed as prehistoric savages,something that causes heavy reactions from antiracist organizations.
<p>thats what i understood.

is gonna turn out bad!? When has that ever happened? In my experience using RT a 100% rating 3 days before release means no less than a 90% after all reviews are in. And almost all major movies above 90% get oscars nods eventually. So yeah maybe Fox owns it but c'mon they can't have that many critics on the dole.

There are many indiginous cultures in africa, the americas and asia/oceania where the notion that if you ate a part of the body of a defeated enemy, you would absorve their vital energy and their soul. And despiste it's gruesome nature, the fact is that was considered a great honour. If you feed on a defeated enimy coprse, it would mean you found him such a valorous oponent you want to be the same as he was, and thus, by eating his flesh or drink his blood, where the ancients though the soul resided you were in fact adding your enemy's soul to yours, and you were gaining his knoweledge and valour.<br><br>The Aztecs were particulary well know for this pratice. so much so that it was considered a great honour if an enemy was sacrificed and his flesh eaten and his blood drank. And the sens eof honour was for the defeated. It was the sacrificed enemy who felt being honour, while those who ate the flesh and drank the blood, they were the ones in shame, because they had to add up valour to themselves.<br><br>All around in ancient cultures where canibalism was practiced, eating an enemy coprse and drink his blood was considered a great honour for the enemy, and those who eat and drank considered themselves to be the repository and blood brothers of the people they ate. Adn guess, what, this pratice was once even done in ancient europe as well. Ritualistic canibalism might be one of the most ancient cultural thing that has been going on in human culture since our earlier days.<br><br>You might think that in the context of the nigerians, from their point of view, their cannibalism might not be a bad thing, but an honourable thing.

I have as much problem as seeing a bllack savage being portaited as evil has i have seeing a white man nazi being portaited as evil. As in, i have no problem at all. It's one thing to be sensitive to racism, it's another to have a bad case of PC over-sensitive bullshit. PC is as much a bad case of fascism as is nazism or racism. It's all shit.

I think we might consider the fact that, given that District 9 is a south african movie, there's cultural thing sin it that,f or the eyes of a south african are imediate and obvious, but they are obscure for a foreigner. It reminds me on how so many westerners dismiss so easily some aspect of japanese and korean movies due to their ignorance of the cultural background that influences those movies. Much like the americans, all countries in their movies use cultural short-hand elements to tell their tales, for the sake of narrative economy. This creates things in those movies that, from the eyes of a westerner liek, say, an american, for them the movie has gaps of logic, plot holes or illogical bahavior from the characters. It migth look that way for an american, for example, but it's totally obvious adn logical for the native audiences from the country where the movie was made.<br><br>I suspect the thing with the nigerians in District 9 is one such case.

but a white nazi or a black savage is the easiest way to distinct good from evil and vice versa.
<p>but the problem is that in this world,in this era,evil is easily disguised and very hard to be distinguished it.
<p>take for example vietnam.americans died because they believed they were fighting for a higher caused.while in fact were deceived by their masters,and they were fighting for the capitalists to get richer.the same thing happens now with iraq,afganistan,etc
<p>and thats my problem.dont show me a black savage as the bad guy.show me the rich guy,or the politician guy,or the religious guy,and so on,who just happens to be black,asian,latin or white,but wants to exploit people for hiw own personal profit or whatever reason.
<p>thats the reality of our world,show me that,not the stereotypes.

We all know that stars are over-payed. but what most don't know is that the top executives at the studios are even more well payed then the stars, and they can hide their earnings in the middle of legal and fiscal obfuscation then the stars. Stars are over-payed, yes, but the executives are really the ones who get the fattest slice of the cake. This is one of the reasons why studios are so desperate to make "bankable" movies that are easy sells to the public, so that they can have another gigantic fat paycheck at the end of the year. Blockbusters are the dumbified shit that for the most part they are today because of the greed of the executives with the help of their personal ass-slave boys who perpectuate their greed fashion of filmmaking, ass-slaves like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, McG, and aICN beloved Jar Jar Abrams and his pack of no-talent "writers" Bob The Orci and The Klutzman.

I agree with te stereotypes being bad things. Thing is, and this is why reality is such a bitch, that sterotypes do indeed exist in reality. There is indeed in the world such people who do fill the stereotype of a savage black or a blood thirsty nazi, and are proud of being so. You know, there's certain type of people who actually deserve to be portaited as clcihe,s because they made themselves into cliches by their own will. I'm not supporting cliches, i'm quite tired of them as you are, but the thing is, cliches do exist in reality.

I also love Stander, i think it's a remarkable, amazing movie. It made me a fan of Thomas Jane. I also thjink of it as a south african movie. however, our freind Southafricanguy here has a bit of an issue with that, not because he doesn't like the movie, quite the contrary, but because the movie was directed by a canadian. For that he doesn't consider is really a south african movie. i say that's a bit of nonsense fom his part. I mean, John Woo is chinese, does Mission Impossible 2 became a chinese movie just because of the director's nationality? I can't see of Stander as nothing but as a south africna movie, and that's part of it's magic and why it's so awesome.

Trolling is not disagreeing with you. Trolling is disrupting a forum for satisfaction of a person whose only interest is in spreading malcontentment for his own selfish gratification. That is a very different thing then expressing an opinion, however hateful you find it.

Quote: "Trolling is disrupting a forum for satisfaction of a person whose only interest is in spreading malcontentment for his own selfish gratification."<P>Like your constant injection of rants pertaining to "Jar Jar Abrams" and "Dawson's Trek"?<P>awardgiver was referring to those spouting off hateful, racist, and/or threatening posts which are clearly deserving of the Ban Hammer.

Even calling it shit is over-rating it. There's no way that the hype, bordering on over-hype, that District 9 is getting has no foundation in the reality of that movie. I really think District 9 will be, at the very least, an interesting effort from a filmmaker with good things to come in the near future.

If youw ant to have a conversation with me, call me by my nick "AsimovLives". It's that or no deal. Call me by anything else, and i'll not even bother to read your post. It's this or no deal. Your call.

"who the fuck gets on a geek movie site FULL of people who do NOTHING BUT watch their favorite films in the cinemas 3 or more times and bashes them for doing just that?"<p>Full of people who do that? Who fucking said that this site is full of people who have nothing better to do than go to the cinema three times for the same movie? I certainly fucking didn't. The number of people who would do that are small. These are people who really have nothing else to do in the evenings, and far too much money in their wallets. At the end of the day, if you're paying to see the same story over and over again, it means that you have too much time on your hands and enjoy the act of repetition. I don't give a fuck how great it looks on the big screen. The only difference by the third time you watch a movie is that you're reciting the dialogue along with the characters now and poking the guy beside you to say 'Dude! This is where the part i told you about it coming up!'<p>
"i know reading is difficult for you but some of us LOVE reading the same book more than once..."<p>You're talking to a fucking English Literature graduate, fuckwit. Reading is NOT difficult for me. I would read three (different) books a week as a child from the library whilst you were sitting in the cinema for the fifth time watching Indiana Jones. Movies have limited releases in a cinema whilst the same book can be read over a period of years. There's a difference here. Look back and you'll see that, when mentioning books, i also indicated a time limit as a means of relating it to watching the same movie in the cinema. You did not and so I assume you didn't get the point of that particular argument.<p>Besides, based upon your ignorance of capitalization (along with several other misapplications of grammar in your post), I'd say it's YOU that has trouble reading. You could argue 'Well, it's the internet - who cares about grammar?' Unfortunately, you decided to attack my grasp of the written word whilst doing so, thus giving me the ammunition to attack you back.<p>You should also take note of my next point. I used facts to make an assessment of you instead of pulling assumptions out of my anal passage. Think about this before you reply.<p>Fuckwit.

Jar Jar Abrams' Dawson Trek is fulkl of win if the actual defenition of the word win in the english language dictionary now means "as shit". Otherwise, Dawson Trek is the most obnoxious stupid retarded shitty movie made this year that is not called Transformers 2.

just say YOU DIDN'T LIKE there will be blood, children of men, and the hurt locker.<p>
don't say they were bad because they just flat out WEREN'T. your horrible taste is your own business. but don't speak ill of great films because you don't know the difference.

'Dude! This is where the part i told you about it coming up!' should have read 'Dude! This is where the part i told you about is coming up!'<p>I hang my head in shame for this and would gladly correct it, if I were able.

Woops, there I go with a derogatory term : ] Seriously, I can't remember the last time that I was so thoroughly on board with a creature onscreen. There wasn't a shot that took me out of the movie. Say what you will about me--and no, I don't think this is perfect movie, so I'm not being an apologist here.

Don't worry, you're not alone in your enjoyment of STAR TREK. Many found it to be fun and an energetic return to some beloved characters. It's just sad to see that some member(s) of AICN have decided to make it the bane of their posting existence this year while they simultaneously give advance praise and thumbs-up to movies they haven't even seen yet.

You are taking my sentiment to an absurd degree. First of all there is no official cinemaphile club for me to strip anyone's membership, there is only my opinion as it pertains to my post and I'm sorry but if you didn't like CHILDREN OF MEN, which was original, intelligent, beautifully shot with great performances,funny, thrilling action, etc., I just don't know what you are looking for in a movie. There I said it. You can go all meta on me all you like for my head scratching, but what YOU are saying is actually the extremist. After all, it's not like I'm saying if you don't like the movie I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, THAT would be extremism. And for those that don't like COM I would ask folks like Interneti, just what DO they like? There seems just no pleasing some folks.

Moon will teach that Jar Jar Abrams hack how intelligent AND entertaining SF movies set in space are made.<br><br>The Road will teach that hack McG how a post-apocalypse movie looks like.<br><br>District 9 will teach that hack Zack Snyder how to make a SF movie with intelligent social comentary.<br><br>A dog will teach that hack Michael Bay how to make a movie in any genre.

Calling Dawson Trek energetic as a way to praise it means nothing at all. Praising a movie for being fun as a compliment means nothing at all. God knows what kind of disturbing shit some people consider fun.

Calling Dawson Trek energetic as a way to praise it means nothing at all. Praising a movie for being fun as a compliment means nothing at all. God knows what kind of disturbing shit some people consider fun.

No i haven't i'm affraid. I'd love to read that, but for some reason i can't find the Ridley Scott's Brave New World talkback. And though i have a most dislike of you, i bow to your knowledge of all things McCarthy and Blood Meridian, since it's quite evident you are a big fan of the man's work, and Blood Meridian in particular (not to mention No Country For Old Man, of course).

Just because you are accustomed to having a sympathetic protagonist most of the time does not mean that this movie is at fault. **SPOILERS AHEAD** Yes, he is annoying and cowardly, especially in calls to his wife ("Don't give up on me, and I won't give up on you either"). And sure, he makes some boneheaded decisions. Given the context of Wikus' situation, I'm sure you'd make some dumb moves as well. His reaction to Christopher telling him that he'll be back in three years might have been selfish, but perhaps even justified. Even if you don't buy into that, this school of thought that you absolutely need a really likable protagonist to latch onto in order to enjoy a movie is bothersome.

When has there been a fucking time limit on responding to posts here? I'm terribly sorry that my 'thekyleglassproject' alarm didn't sound an hour ago and cause me to come running back to the computer to defend myself?<p>Besides, I thought you just admitted that you didn't care? Why are we still talking about this? Stay down where you fell, son.<p> You're certainly no Lazarus.

Yes, we see that everytime you take a dump on TB with one of your STAR TREK rants. You should be careful you don't blow your colon out.<P>Quote: "Calling Trek energetic as a way to praise it means nothing at all. Praising a movie for being fun as a compliment means nothing at all."<P>Says who? You? Fuck off with that condescending bullshit.<P> Assimov - your initial response to STAR TREK was no where near as vehement as it is now. Your constant blathering has lead you down a tiresome and unfunny road to obsession. Please give it up.

It's not just bothersome, it's also dangerous. This insistence on "sympathetic" characters is one of the major reasons why most movies are so cliched and uninteresting.<br><br>Worst, the concept of what is a sympathetic character is also very dubious. What some might think is a sympathetic character others might find to be an unsufferable asshole. Tom Cruise's character in Top Gun came to mind. This is why i defend the idea that mor ethen a character being sympathetic, it should be INTERESTING above all else.<br><br>I'm reminded of the main character played by SIR Michael Caine in Get Carter (1971). That character has not one single sympathetic trait to him, but it is an immensely interesting character, one you love to be with him all the way throughout the whole movie. Interesting characters, that's how it should be done, and leave the "sympathetic" thing for us in the audience to decide, thank you very much. This is why i have a great interest and love for the 70s movies, they weren't bothered with "sympathetic" characters, they all cared to make them interesting first and foremost. That's how you do it.

"All good movies are cinephiles litmus tests."<p>Movies are subjective. Who decides on what a 'good' movie is? Box office figures? The Oscars? The staff of AICN? You? I'm not attacking you here but that's a very dangerous statement to make.

I haven't read your last post. You already know why, given the content of one of my previous posts. This is last time i speak about this. Do as i say or no deal. That's how it is, no exceptions. It's either as i say or no deal. Your call.

I do agree with you on the above. IN fact I personally seem drawn to movies with unsympathetic characters. Get Carter is a good example. Could also include The King of Comedy and more recently than those Buffalo 66 amongst many more...Oooo a new game!

What makes you assume that you know where I live? For all you know we could live in the same place? I might have walked past the very cinema that you spend half your week in, watching the same movie over and over again?

Good movies are not that subjective. Our preferences are. I don't like Casablanca much, but i know it's a great movie. I love Tokyo Gore Police, and i dfon't think it's a particular great movie, but i can't help love it. There's a big difference between liking a movie because you think it fun and knowing it's a great movie because of it's own intrinsic qualities.<br><br>Dawson Trek is a bad movie because it fails on all levels that a movie should. District 9, i suspect, will be a good movie because it will work on all things that truly matters.

ok, here you are right. i did make a big assumption.<p>
i was basing your location on the use of the word "whilst." not generally accepted over here in the states. i know because i try to use it and everyone eyeballs me. even got marked off for it in an essay i wrote in college.

You grew to hate my posts because you haven'tread them carefully... until my latest. What you don't understadn, until now, is that all my posts are as the one you agreed with. They all came from the same source. I know you are a smart and interesting guy, always a good read here at AICN. You just have been distracted about me. I'm certain in the future we will be far more amicable. I suspect we share more things in common then you care to admit at the present.

My wife gets motion sick easily, I don't but I've learned to despise the 'method'. Now we hear that this movie is full of shaky 'real' camera work, and it's quite likely that we're going to take a pass on this one for that exact reason. We felt thoroughly sick watching Cloverfield...
Too bad...I was looking forward to this one. When will movie makers learn that this is OBNOXIOUS to many people in their audience??

there are some elements in certain films that make said films unequivocally "good."<p>
my support for this conclusion is there will be blood. i don't think anyone can make the argument that daniel day-lewis' performance wasn't astonishing. and since daniel plainview IS there will be blood, the film is good for the performance alone.

I see. No worries. I sometimes use words people are unfamiliar with. I told somebody they had "erred" recently and then had to rephrase it with "Um... you made a mistake" when they gave me a blank look.<p>It saddens me sometimes that people (and I'm not referring to you here - just my fellow peers) don't have a wider vocabulary. :(<p>I blame it on not enough people reading books nowadays. :)

In which the antagonist is rooted for as oppose to the protagonist? This may be a bad example, but take Hannibal Lecter. I'd say that a large part of moviegoers don't feel sympathy for him, but they certainly feel strongly passionate about his character, thus rendering Clarice almost annoying for getting in the way of the fun that is Hannibal onscreen.
Sure, the audience should determine sympathy, not just the writers, but if they are intending a clear divide between protagonist and antagonist, is it a matter of failed writing when the audience leans towards the Vaders and Lecters or is that a good thing?

No i didn't. I didn't even skemed it, other then the energetic coment, which is oneof the things i can't help notice among the Dawson Trek fans, due to the hilalrious nature of that non-argument. I always catch that, no matter what. Other then tha,t i read nothing, nor i care to. I'm that disciplined. Besides, I know the dude pretty well by now. Unless he actually writes "AsimovLives" in a post title, there will be no breach from my stanze. That's how it is.

I don't usually like it but Cuaron uses it tastefully and sparingly and not to the nth degree as in say, the Bourne movies. If you were going to throw out every movie with shaky cam you'd have to throw out SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and I don't think anyone here is ready to do that.

I saw District 9 last week and plan on seeing it again. It's nothing like the ads and trailers. And I'm not entirely sure the masses with get the film. For starters, there's a pretty out there African juju witchcraft subplot that propels a lot of the story.
It's the anti alien invasion film, with shadows of The Outer Limits, The Fly, and Black Hawk Down. The apartheid allegory will probably be lost on many and there isn't a lot of action in the film until the very end.
But when it splatters, it splatters good. If it were a stage production, you'd need a poncho in the first few rows.
But its not on the same level as Children of Men and no one should compare the two. That's not a slam against District 9 but more about how incredible Children of Men is.

Hannibal lecter is a perfect example of the importance of a character being interesting above all else. In the end, he became a much more memorable and easy to remember character then anybodt else in the movie, and not because he's a good guy, but because he's fascinating. That's the thing. If one wants to create a sympathetic character, by all means, do, but make him interesting first and foremost. The sympathy thing is fir us to decide, not the filmmakers.

Whilt I agree with you on "There Will Be Blood", it's not enough for me to therefore dicate to people that it's a "good" movie. As I said, movies are subjective. That's why we have so many problems on these Talkbacks. Two people go to see the same movie and bring their own expectations and movie history to it; thus the result will be a different movie for each person.<p>It's the same with all art.

I saw the short this movie is based on a while ago and it was pretty great. I totally forgot about it and then read Harry bugging out about District 9 which had a different name but seemed oddly familiar. I'm sure somebody must've posted a link but Alive in Joburg is on youtube I think. I'm really looking forward to seeing the full feature. It's nice to have a film to get excited about and it's great to see Peter Jackson (who already has a lot on his plate) supporting new film makers trying to get their own projects made.

asimov said it.<p>
even if one didn't like the film, the performance makes the film a quality picture (or, good picture, as it were). inarguably.<p>
speaking in musical terms (what i studied) i don't like the music of strauss all that well, but i know from analysis the quality of his work.

Does anyone care? No. Why??? I haven't shown my outline to anyone because--first, I don't wish to write the script. I could do it, but I'm plainly being lazy. I simply don't wish to spend the time. I went through a process where I spent about 8 to 10 months writing a script and there was a lot of emotional baggage attached to it...having to do with something personal that just touch the wind out of my sails, although the script and story are solid...and a lot of fun. And number two, it is such a nice twist, one that you have never seen before that it could easily get ripped-off--so I would never present it to anyone, unless I was within zero degrees of separation in terms of getting the material to the right people that could green-light it. And yes, I am yanking my own chain...but I am telling the truth, and yanking my own chain, at the same time. Whatever the twist is in District 9...I'm betting it can't beat mine. I'll look forward to reading the outline of Distrinct 9 when it is posted this Friday on another website, as I won't waste my time seeing it. I am certain that I will be perfectly underwhelmed by what I read, but, if it is good, or great, as the media hype is declaring, I will be fair enough to say it, and give credit, where credit is due--loudly so.

I've been here a long long time, man. All the way back to the batman and robin days. I read more than I post and being honest with you, I disagree with more of what you say than agree. But to be fair I'm sure a lot of us here would get on very well in reality. We just become righteous know it all little cunts behind a keyboard. I imagine a future where we all walk hand in hand in the land of fluffy bunnies and rainbows and all agree that none of us are right or wrong in regard to films. Lebowski appears to us as god and says "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man".

It’s now a proven FACT that Knowles and the other movie related websites have been bought as in evidence of their blowjob reviews for G.I. Joe, so, unless you want to feel like a complete sucker, you have two options. The first is to wait until after the weekend and if RottenTomatoes gives has it rating higher then 90% then I would suggest that it’s a good bet, so, by all means, go and see it. Option two is to download it, like I am, then if the movie is good enough then go to a theatre and pay to see it but if it’s shit then keep your money so you can help fuck over Peter Jackson who has Harry twisted around his little finger.<br> <br>Now, let me be clear, once I’ve seen it for myself I fully plan on checking it out at a theatre if it’s good because I think that it is important to support quality movies but I am no longer willing to waste my time or money on something recommended by the likes of gluttonous fat, unshaved, smelly whores like Knowles, Faraci or McWeeny who are now officially on the payroll of the studio’s and who’s word means absolute shit as they are nothing but studio shills, sucking dick for access.

Does anyone care? No. Why??? I haven't shown my outline to anyone because--first, I don't wish to write the script. I could do it, but I'm plainly being lazy. I simply don't wish to spend the time. I went through a process, last year, where I spent about 8 to 10 months writing a script and there was a lot of emotional baggage attached to it...having to do with something personal that just took the wind out of my sails, and in a very big way, although the script and story are solid...and a lot of fun, I just became extremely disillusioned with life. And number two, in regard to my alien invasion outline, it is such a nice twist, it really comes out of nowhere--as a real sucker punch, one that you have never seen before, to such a degree that it could easily get ripped-off--so I would never present it to anyone, unless I was within zero degrees of separation in terms of getting the material to the right people that could green-light it. And yes, I am yanking my own chain...but I am telling the truth, and yanking my own chain, at the same time. Whatever the twist is in District 9...I'm betting it can't beat mine. I'll look forward to reading the outline of District 9 when it is posted this Friday on another website, as I won't waste my time seeing it. I am certain that I will be perfectly underwhelmed by what I read, but, if it is good, or great, as the media hype is declaring, I will be fair enough to say it, and give credit, where credit is due--loudly so.

How is that extremist? I never said you were going to hunt anyone down, GEEZ. People have varying opinions. Like I said, I personally though CoM was good, but just because someone didn't like doesn't mean their movie taste is horrible, or that they are less a cinephile than you or Harry or whoever. Fuck, what if I said I was bored by Citizen Kane?

I know somebody who thinks his performance was overrated. I disagree with this but that view was formed by his perception of the performance.<p>You bring up music and so I'll give you a clearer explanation. Two men meet. One asks the other which classical music they enjoy. If the second then replies that they don't like classical music, the first man may think 'How can they NOT like classical music?' and decide that they have no musical taste. As there is no device on Earth that can ascertain whether somebody's musical taste is 'good' or 'bad', this assessment comes purely from the first man's perspective.<p>It's the same for movies. It's the same for the art hanging in a gallery.<p>As I said - movies are subjective. I refuse to look down on somebody because, as AsimovLives seems to suggest, they don't enjoy "Children Of Men". They might enjoy "2001" which i don't rate as highly as some.<p>I think "The Tempest" is one of Shakespeare's best plays. Some people prefer "Hamlet". Which of us can be proved correct?

I just read your post regarding Blood Meridian in the Brave New World talkback, and i can't help but comend you on your very thoughful and intelligent reply. I'm sure you are right in all things about whjat you said. Again, i have to bow to your better knowledge of the book and the author.<br><br>And yes, it was a mistake to have read the last chapter before even begining to read the book, but the harm is done now. I also might have mislead youin my notion of The Judge as personification of justice, as in what we understand of it. I mean to say natural justice in the sense that the judge is like a force of nature, a force of the chaotic forces of the universe that always find their way into the lives of people who, eventually, they get to them what they have sowed in life. Seems like The Judge and Anton Chigurth in No Country For Old Men seem to be both a sort of representation of the implacable and unforgiving foces of nature that squash the lives of unimportant men who think they can rise above their station in lif,e who think they can challenge some sort of fate, if we can call it that.<br><br>Or maybe i'm just talking out of my ass and it's all over my head. You be the judge on that.

I really wish i could like that movie more. There's so much in that mvoie that just fulfills my SF needs and sense of enjoyment. Which makes the movie even more infuriating for me because of the strange and mindblowing misteps it makes. And one thing that really bothers me is a movie that intends to be a fairly realistic depiction of future spacefaring, and then fucks it up with the kind of shit one would expect from a Michael Bay movie. The over-suse of sound for the space stuff (less would certainly had been better), the strange scientific fucks up (instant freezing in space vaccum???? FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!), and fucking Freddy Krugger. Thiong is, i dfid got and understood even the point of the Freddy Krugger character, and it was great to see scientists as heroic heroes, but still, i saw in that movie a director who lost nerve on his own movie and decided to make decisions to try to guess what "appeals" to the audiences, and this betrayed the very nature and internal logic of his own movie. Sunshine is half a brillant movie, and half an infuriating one. It got this close to be a new 2001! And that is what fucking upsets me the most about it.

It's not a question of enjoyment, it's a question of ACKOWLEDGIEMENT. Music brings us a good example of this: if soembody says that Beethoeven was a bad composer, you know for sure that guy know shit. You don't even need tolove his music to know he was a genius and an extremely important musican in all of history. It's this extreme use of "subjective" thing that is pure nonsense. It reeks of self-indulgency and a frightning lack of self-awareness and rationality.

I agree the movie does take a bizzare turn in the third act, but Boyle seems to like that. 28 Dyas Later, Shallow grave, The beach, Sunshine (and i'm sure a few more I can't remember) all have someone going batshit crazy in the 3rd act. I kinda like it.

You are the extremist because you are taking what my post and equating it as reflective of the great ills of society or some ridiculous shit which imho is extreme. And I think I'm being a lot more polite than most on this board about it those with differing opinions. To me, CHILDREN OF MEN has all the boxes checked as to what we look for in great films on this site (which I've listed in numerous posts and won't repeat again) and then suddenly somebody (<cough> locks <cough>) comes along and says, "oh it's got shaky cam, it's over-rated garbage." HUH?? Or it was 'boring." Double Huh?? And I'm still waiting to hear what the alternative 'great' movie is to CHILDREN OF MEN in most recent sci-fi if CoM is as bad as they are trying to say. We are always complaining about the stoopidity of Orci and Kurtzman and their ilk on this site, well if we don't champion a kick ass intelligent movie made for adults like CHILDREN OF MEN then we deserve BAYFORMERS 20.

Why would anybody in their right mind have a problem that's your favorite play of Old Bill? So what if my fave play of his is either Julius Caesar or Hamlet or Macbeth? (i really need to decide in this!). Why would i think any less of you if you prefer The Tempest? The Tempest is great, one of Old Bill's best. The point would never be that you prefer The Tempest over Hamlet, because, both are great. The problem would be is you prefered a shit play over a good one, which is not your case concerning Old Bill's. (besides did Old Bill ever made a bad play?)

Sometimes you get good conversations about various flicks and other times it’s just fun to come here and get into flame wars. What I don’t like is being lied to by the owners and operators of these sites.<br> <br>There was never any chance that Harry wasn’t going to give a glowing review of D9 because he and Jackson go back about a decade while they both have a moronic fascination with King Kong, when Mystery of the Wax Museum (also made in 1933) is far superior and also stars Fay Wray, then there is the fact that the studio had an advance screening for the movie in Austin last week at the Alamo Drafthouse with the fucking Director and star in attendance.<br> <br>Paramount was able to buy off Knowles, among other webscum, with a free sneak preview of G.I. Joe two weeks before the movie came out. So with that in mind can we trust anything that comes out of his cocksucker? No.<br> <br>But, hey, don’t listen to me, check out the movie for yourself and if it’s as good as some people are saying then, GREAT, as I think we really need a good, low-budget, R-Rated sci-fi flick to show Hollywood that you don’t need to spend 200 million on a piece of PG-13 kiddy shit.

here's my last comment because i'm at work (hehehe).
obviously, we won't change each others mind here and now. i get your summation of the argument and you know mine.<p>
i just want to be clear that it is a RARE occasion for something to be inherently good or bad. i just want you to know i don't throw it around lightly. i HATE top 40 pop music. but i can still distinguish who does it good and who does it bad. justin timberlake knows what the fuck he is doing (as does beyonce). i would NEVER own their records, but i can ascertain their ability and worth (within in their field). whereas britney spears (even pre-insanity, top of her game britney) was never worth her salt.<p>
anyhow, if you reply i will probably get it later. but i assume it's an "agree to disagree" situation.

Pre-2005 movies, and movies shot in black and white:
Pi, Lawrence of Arabia(does that count?), Force 10 from Navarone, Bridge on the River Kwai, Ben Hur, this great Russian movie based on "A Prisoner in the Caucasus", Requiem for a Dream, Amores Perros, Maria Full of Grace, Alien, Full Metal Jacket, shall I go on?

I find it interesting that when I deconstructed Dollhouse, and reconstructed it in the form of a story outline...my work was never attacked...not once, and I have posted it 3 to 4 times over the last 6 months, or so, as a point of debate. However, I was never attacked for its contents. Some said it was a little too Alias for their liking...but they could not attack the core of the story...and didn't try, as it successfully corrects what is wrong with the story, and makes it linear, and the concept easy to understand. I have openly asked others to best it with their own outlines, if they can--all my critics, however, have refused, while never assailing the quality of my writing--not once. No, instead, they make personal attacks aimed at me...or my methods of delivering my ideas, but they could not find a point of entry to assail my writing in terms of structure and quality, story wise--and that is compliment enough.

well said, sir. No one expects us to all join hands and sing "Kumbya" over ANY topic (though it seemed that the death of John Hughes came pretty darn close) however, I agree with your assertion that just like there is an acknowledgment by scholars as to Beethoven's genius, similarly, we debate film merits here and I'm sorry, somebody who is saying that CHILDREN OF MEN, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and THE HURT LOCKER (interneti) all suck are losing cinemaphile cred pretty quick, imho. Btw, interneti, I like a lot of the movies you mentioned that you liked, however NONE of those mentioned had the depth, reach and density of CoM.

My problem with Sunshine is not that there's a turn in the plot. I evne understand the dramatic nature of that, and philosophically, i'm in complete agreement. I love to see scientists take on a religious fanatic and it's the scioentist, and not the god people who end up saving the day. That's a refreshing twist that you don't see in holylwood movies, where in those it's always the faith that saves the world. In Sunshine, reason saves the world, as it would.<br><br>The real problem, in my mind, is the execution. The final third betrays the movie. for example, why would the Freddy Krugger guy needs to go on a killing rampage. Just by being in the ship, breeding oxygen, he would achieve his intentions, to fuck up the mission. In fac,t by killing anybody, he would cause one less person to breed oxygen, adn thus, help the mission. Him being a stowaway could be sufficient, without resorting to killing. In fact, the killing would had to fall to the heroes hands, because they would need to get rid of him to complete the mission. There would be heavy drama there. the otehr crew member kileld hismelf to save the rest of the team the trouble, but this time, they would really need to put their money in their mouth and go with it to the end. That would had been much more in keeping with the mood and the notions at display in the movie. Instead, we get a slasher last part, which cheappens the movie considerably. And betrays itself.

I originally thought you were suggesting that if somebody doesn't like "Children Of Men" then they've failed your litmus test. You, however are talking about the technical aspects of moviemaking. Therefore, you're saying somebody only fails the test if they say it was a badly made movie. If so, I agree that the evidence at hand supports the argument that such a statement is incorrect.<p>If this be the case, I gladly withdraw my attack on your post.

Is it me, or that woman as she looks in King Kong is so super-sexy her beauty still holds even by today's standards? Man, i have to admit, othe reasons i klike the old King Kong is because of Fay Wray looks. God dammit, i can't be that wrong about her, can I?

You're correct. It's an "agree to disagree" situation. However, I've enjoyed this little discussion.<p>Well done to you for being the type of Talkbacker that can engage in a healthy discussion even after we got off on the wrong foot.<p>I look forward to reading more from you in these talkbacks and perhaps debating with you again on an equally interesting topic.

I also think there are artistic considerations in a movie liek Children Of Men that positively makes it a very good movie. That doesn't mean you have to love it, but to refuse to know and aknowledge that movie has many qualities wihich elevates it from above the average, well, that's folly. Sure, maybe one can have problems with the philosopical and psycological aspects of the movie. Maybe one would feel insulted by the negative depiction of humanity in the movie. Or that the end is a bit naive. Sure, that's OK. Nobody needs to love it. But if you claim to be am movie geek and go around saying the movie is shit and bad, that's absurd! I don't need to like Casablanca and Gone With The Wind to know they are very good and important movies. That's the movie geek in me, to know that those movies are good despiste my non-preference for them. That's the thing.

and that's a conversation you would have to have with boyle (or maybe the dvd commentray gives more insight into the reason why?). I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel what you do apon first viewing. Personally it doesn't bother me much now. I've seen it multiple times now. It's part of the movie and that's that really.

Despiste all my grivences about that movie, that was one great movie to behold onscreen. In the big screen, that movie is just spectacular beyond belief. It has some of the best CGI ever made since CGI became proeminent in filmmaking. The production design is second to none. And there's visual moment with the use of camera placement shoots in that movie that are nothing short of amazing. Despiste all it's flaws, Sunshine is a movie to be seen in theaters.

I agree mostly with what you say. Indeed, if someone was to say 'Children Of Men is shit', I would ask them to verify that statment. If their argument can be quantified by actual evidence beyond their own perception of the movie, I would therefore accept their view of the movie whilst expressing my own and also using actual evidence as to how my own views on the movie were formed.

You do know you are at someone elses website and reading their opinion on a movie right? It's not a shopping list from your mum! "Oh what!? I hate you mum! that food you made me buy was horrible. I don't like it! I'm downloading it next time"

I'm glad you brough up the audio comentary of sunshine. The DVD has two, from Boyle and the screenwriter, and from the chief scientific adviser. Contrary to my expectations,a dn though what they asay is interesting, the Boyle and the writer comentary is dryer and less informative then expected. The real revelation is the scientist comentary. The guy is interesting, articulated, funny and even though he worked on the movie and has a personal stake at it, he still can't help but call bullshit when the movie goes wrong with the science. Namely, you can even sens ehis frustration s«when he sees the instant freezing in vaccum scene in the movie. He immediatly corrects that when that scene came. Insteresting fact, he was the inspiration for Cilliam Murphy's character, inclusing his personality traits. Weirdly, the scientist even looks like Cilliam Murphy in real life, spitting images of one another.

Of corus,e my friend, but what i mean to say is that beauty standrds hav enot been exactly the same for all ages. I mean, most beautiful women today would, in the early 20th century, considered starving skelletons. They loved their women a bit more with met to the bones back then. A beauty of those days would be considered "fat" by the standards of today. I mean, this is the times where they had to thin out Scarlet Johansson for Iron Man 2, for fuck's sake!

The 5 long single take scenes in the movie alone, and specially the last one, would immediatly rank Children Of Men as a very good movie. Adn not just ebcause of the technical expertise shown in those sequence,s but the whole artistic decision to play those scenes that way, which bring an emotional impact that would never be there otherwise. Any hack wuld had cut that scene to ribbons, to make it more exciting. Only a true talented director would challenged himself and his team to make scenes that long with a single take image (many of them ar enot real single takes, but they ar perceived that way) already tells that we are in the presence of filmmakers that want to challenge filmmaking grammar while at the same time doing everything for the sake of maximum emotional impact for the betterment of the movie. That alone makes Children Of Men a very good movie. And there's so much more stuff in it that makes it a great movie.

Fay would be today standards. there is nothing of her! But we all know skinny is so last year, girlfriend. As for Johansson. I don;t think she thinned out for the role, she just got in shape for the demanding physical side of the role I think.
<p>okokok all this getting on nonsense is freaking me out a bit. Can we go back to how it was before? I'll start by calling you a fucking cunt for going so far off topic. Your turn!

Whilst I share your dislike of that movie, my loathing comes directly from the poorly written script. I was wondering you acknowledge, as I do, that JJ Abrams is a fine director and certainly not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the vile Michael Bay. Even I can see that (despite his overuse of lense flares) it was JJ Abrams that made that movie barely watchable. Under the guidance of most other directors, the terribleness of that script would have been even more apparent. I recognised that the space battle segments were terrific. It's just a shame they were wrapped around a script in which Scotty suddenly became Bugs Bunny zooming around tubes, characters would meet by unexplained chance etc.

Oh, I don't diaagree with you on that at all. Those long take scenes, as you call them, improved an already fine movie supported by an excellent script and some fine acting. Those scenes alone helped win it two spots on my DVD shelf.

For Knowles to lie to us? Hey, it’s his site and if he can live with being a studio lapdog then I wouldn’t expect anything less from a morbidly obese glutton with no self respect. I come here for the talkbacks mostly and the occasional piece of info although there’s been fuck all of that over the last few years. But I do read every review that gets posted and I just don’t like being lied to, do you?

I have no problem with blacks of any kind are presented as evil...so long as there are balancing images. But if every representative of that group is presented as weak or evil, and all the "good" people are presented as white (which is very different from saying that all white people are good) then that can reasonably assumed to be the attitude of the filmmakers, and a valid point to criticize. As for "District 9" I can't wait to see it--but am alert that a white South African and a New Zealander's idea of "racial sensitivity" might not be my own. Doesn't make them wrong, or bad...but might affect my enjoyment of the film.

You know what is as good as Dawson Trek? Filming a dog taking a shit. And I don't know why you insist on calling it "Dawson Trek" when Abrams had nothing to do with Dawson's Creek. Wouldn't "Felicity Trek" or "What About Brian Trek" be more appropriate?

This talkback is an accurate random sampling of an recent AICN talkback. Reading my posts here vs. lockesbrokenleg, how could you have EVER equated me with a troll of his kind, lol. Just because I made a few observations you didn't agree with in THE LOVELY BONES talkback, they were backed up with evidentiary points and hardly lockesbrokenleg-like trolling. That hurt, TBWAN, really. (not really, but you get my point.)

You know how long I’ve heard that fucking weak ass argument? “Oh, he’s not a ‘real’ journalist”, so who cares if he get’s preferential treatment and pweasants from the studio’s for which he then writes a glowing review of whatever piece of shit they’re trying to sucker the public into seeing, like G.I. Joe, right? I mean, Talkbacker with no name, do you place absolutely no value on the personal integrity of people who recommend something to you?<br> <br>Some people dump on Harry for stupid shit like saying “chocolate covered pussy juice” but I don’t because, like you said, it’s his site and he’s free to say anything he wants but when I come here I want reviews that are unbiased from the influence of the studio’s who, despite your assertions that Knowles isn’t a journalist, DO grease his wheels and that’s because millions of people come to this site on a daily basis because they consider it a source of information on whether or not a particular movie is good enough to spend money on.<br> <br>If Harry is happy to get free screenings, pweasants and as much shit as he can out of the studio’s the I have no problem with that just as long as he admits that he’s a paid shill and that it has influenced his reviews. But he doesn’t have to be a “real journalist” for his opinions to have, ahem, weight with the public and I think that it’s disingenuous for him to treat his readers like suckers because we DO want to read what he has to say but we don’t like being lied to.

It was a fresh and original movie that needed a better script and a more compelling main character. Rickey was willing to overlook the heavy handed political allegory once alien weaponry started going off. But that doesn't mean Rickey's going to take this movie as the gospel. Overall, it kind of felt like an early Danny Boyle movie. Definitely a solid first effort from an inventive director.<br>
<br>
Was it the second coming like others on AICN are proclaiming? No. The problem is, you people are so jaded by shitty summer popcorn fare featuring lame buzzlines, sleazy product placement, and rehashed ideas that when you get something different, you collectively shit your pants. The action was balls out terrific though. Solid gritty stuff. Never before has Rickey seen a mecha go apeshit and hurl a pig at a soldier. Rickey damn near jumped out of his seat in joy after seeing that. The movie was a mix of good and bad, but certainly enough to make Rickey curious to see what Blomkamp does next.

Thank you for thrashing Children of Men!
Talkbacker with no name, that Russian movie based on "Prisoner of the Caucasus" was shot in black and white. It's called "Prisoner of the Mountains." BTW, I wasn't born in the 50's, so there's not many Black and white movies I like, sorry Grandpa.

And please, show me the thread where I'm getting "wasted" by AsimovLives.<P>Quote: "Why don't you just admit you have lousy taste in sci fi movies?"<P>What are you talking about? I think you have me confused with some other Talkbacker.<P>SHOCKER.

When I saw someone bring up the Fountain I couldn't help but start to wonder what kind of frenzy mention of Donnie Darko might stir up here in the SciFi Talkbacks. Seriously I feel like if you didn't get emotional watching the slow motion gun fight scene in the slums, with the women singing and everyone astounded to be seeing a baby, during Children of Men that something is missing in your human component.

I respect my friend Asimov's opinion, and Trek is pretty much the only thing we so incredibly disagree on, otherwise we have mutual respect for each other and enjoy intense discussions on cinema.<P>That being said, no disrespect to anyone, but god enough with the discussions about Star Trek, the movie is here and gone, the opinions on it are solidified, and we are having the same discussions about the movie as we did when it came out, the same opinions are being voiced with results no different than they were before. Come on people, District fucking 9 is arriving, lets talk about that, let's not detour another TB into a Trek debate, because it is, at this place in time, totally and utterly pointless.<P>Regarding D9, I think it will kick serious ass, it will be pure Sci-Fi the likes of which we have not seen in quite some time. I love the fact that we don't know anyone in this film, I love the fact that it has a minute budget of $30 million and looks just as good if not BETTER than movies with 5 times the budget. My only fear is that if the film is a success, I don't want that success to go to Blomkamp's head, I don't want to see him given gobs of money by a studio to make a vapid sci-fi stinker, I want him to stay true to what he is and maybe, just maybe he can continue to give us what we have been lacking for so long....true Science Fiction.

It's no hyperbole. I can't wait for the hype regarding Dawson Trek dies,a dn the backlash begins. and when people realise they have been had by one of the worst movie made in the last 15 years. Well, in USA and UK at least, worldwide people don't seem to take much of a shit about that miserable piece of shit.

Not for me. Rockwell was superb, but the writing fell flat for me, it really did. I won't ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but let's just say the interactions between the characters rang false to me. It was an aggravating experience for me.

Do you actually need someone else's review to convince you to go see a movie...let alone influence the way you feel about it? Do you come out of the theater shaking your fists at the sky and cursing the likes of Harry Knowles for tricking you into seeing movies?

Until I saw District 9. ******SPOILERS*****************i loved the concept of the weapons not firing in human hands and the Nigerian wanting Wikus' arm. the last 40 minutes or so is just bliss. I think some people may want to disregard some of this as pure sci fi because damn near the whole thing takes place in broad daylight.

Knowles and every other reviewer for this site gave that fucking shitty movie a full on sloppy blowjob and the reason is because they got to into a free studio sponsored screening two weeks before it premiered. It’s not just him though. McWeeny at ShitFlix, Faraci at CHUD among many others in the internet movie geek community gave this shit glowing reviews and, as I have explained in other threads, it’s because the studio catered to them while shutting out any respected critics and the reason for this was that the studio’s know that these people can be easily bought by just showing them a little preferential treatment.<br> <br>I am also pissed because I had a free ticket that I decided to use for this that piece of shit and it was only because almost every site that I read was slobbering over G.I. Joe and how much “fun” it was and how it was “just like playing with the toys” which doesn’t surprise me since most of these dickless asswipes spent most of their childhood shoving their G.I. Joe’s up their assholes before they learned how to suppress their latent homosexuality by over eating and butching up by growing beards or goatees.<br> <br>Meanwhile the rest of us feel like we’ve been fucked in the ass.

Sorry, but a free studio sponsored screening two weeks before the premier is not a reason. You're going to have to produce a copy of a pay stub or something to prove anything beyond what their reviews say.<P>Thankfully, I've been able to avoid any such "concerns" by deciding that a movie based on G.I. JOE was something I had no interest in seeing in the first place. Now, maybe I'm just getting old and my tastes have grown beyond cheesy comic book characters and films based on toys. Or, maybe I'm just getting better at spotting junk at the first sign of a trailer.

I was planning on seeing this already. This District 9 movie inspired Harry Knowles to write a cohesive, seemingly proofread review? Holy shit!<P>
That, right there, indicates a level of sincerity not to be ignored. <P>
This will be my first midnight showing of a film this year.<P>
Because of this review.

Children of Men bored me. Star Trek is a decent but cheesy action film that completely misses the point. Sunshine is a pretty movie but completely devoid of anything original and generally doesn't work on any level. Boyle is MASSIVELY overrated<p>
I think Harry's reviews are underrated by talkbackers personally. He provokes debate, has passion and writes well. I'm finally excited about District 9. That's a good thing.<p>
AVATAR will rule all, I have no doubt whatsoever. It's called fucking attention to detail, intelligence, plot and imagination.

Paramount didn’t preview the movie for mainstream critics. FACT. Two weeks before the movie premiered, reviews started showing up on AICN and CHUD among other movie related websites. FACT. The reviews on those websites were glowing over how much “fun” the movie was. FACT. The movie was eventually revealed to be a flaming piece of shit. FACT<br> <br>This is because, above all else, people like Knowles, McWeeny and Faraci fancy themselves as “serious” movie critics (while claiming not to actually be real critics when they get busted for payola and defended by morons like you who say that it’s “just their opinion”) and they love it when the studios cater to them with set visits, interviews with the cast and crews of these movies not to mention being invited to a free screening which massages their ego and makes them feel important.<br> <br>The studio’s know how easy it is to buy these people off with a little bit of access because, as you may or may not know, access is what webscum crave because it makes them feel important within the pathetic little circle jerking echo chamber of movie geeks that they surround themselves with.<br> <br>But it comes at a price and that is selling out your integrity by giving a fucking piece of shit like G.I. Joe a good review because your afraid that the studio might not throw you scraps from their table.<br> <br>Understand now dipshit or do I have to write it phonetically in crayons for it to penetrate your fucking Cro-Magnon skull you goddamn knuckle dragging retard?

I was dragged to the movie by my brother and my mom--they just wanted to get out and see a movie last night. My brother felt a wanna-be blockbuster would be okay, and being that it is somewhat of an event to see the big special effects, and what not, that we should just go and partake. I went relunctantly, as I said...and found the movie to play like "The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" movie, but with a higher budget.<BR><BR>The film was largely miscast to annoyance. Call it stunt casting, the casting couch at work, or just casting one's friends, but it was a everywhere...and it really hurt the film??? They got the female roles just right, though, but Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Denis Quaid (spelling?) and the villians, were all completely miscast. The problem with Quaid, is you could tell that he did not believe in the material and was just doing it for the paycheck. He seemed bored and unconvinced...and delivered largely a script reading, not a performance. Wayans, was just playing the type character of the funny, and loud black guy, and that is just fine, but he carried no weight. He was like Will Smith and Tyrese light, and those two are terrible...but at least, Smith does carry some weight as an actor. Channing Tatum seems to be a nice guy--that is my impression of him from his interviews...however, he is not yet a leading man, as he can barely act. He should have been given a smaller role, with only a few lines, because he can't carry a movie. If they had cast more weighty actors, they would have had a better product in the end, as those actors would have elevated the flimsy material. Even the side characters of the Joe team...and those of the villains, are roles filled with soft, to very bad, actors??? <BR><BR>Lastly, the special effects are plentiful--too much even to the point of being annoying...and they are all of varying quality, mostly low quality, BTW--reminding one of "Spy Kids" and the previously mentioned Power Rangers. The film never takes a break from the action to tell a story beyond the constant fighting, explosions, and shooting--and that throws the pacing all off. As well, the film is filled with unnecessary flashbacks, delivering the backgrounds of too many characters for reasons unknown, other than to guarantee toy sells for myriad of characters seen onscreen. I am shocked that the director of the recent "The Mummy" films...directed this mess of a movie--it is perplexing to witness him decline as a director, and not evolve? They spent a lot of money on this film, and you see the money on the screen, alright...but it is too much money spent, in all the wrong places? They should have spent the money to hire better actors, and to better polish the script, and give us better costumes and sets. Instead, like "Speed Racer", just not as bad, we got an ugly and guady looking Skittles commercial, in place of a real movie.

Rickey doesn't believe that the camera in the theater at the NYC screening was HD, so it was tough to get an idea of what the HD camerawork was actually like. It definitely didn't compare to the awesomeness of Michael Mann's recent stuff. D9 was certainly a well-shot movie, but because much of it was filmed documentary style, it was tough to see all the details that HD might have portrayed. The last 20 minutes of the film definitely kicked Rickey's scrotum into the floor. Big thanks to AICN for setting up the screening in NYC and sweet fancy moses, PLEASE DO MORE OF THESE IN THE FUTURE!!!<br>
<br>
Call Rickey nuts, but Star Trek gets his nod for best movie of the summer. It doesn't really hold up to repeat viewings, but it was definitely a solid & fun flick that made Rickey pay to see it twice.

Who clearly hasn't seen very many films if he sees even a remote similarity between Pan's Labyrinth and anything Tim Burton has ever done. What, because it has fairy tale elements? Really? Are you that myopic?

SUNSHINE was a really great sci fi film as well. I can't believe so many people think that it and CHILDREN OF MEN were slow and boring. What happened to people's attention spans? I also disagree that SUNSHINE betrays itself in the thirst act. Just because it took a turn the overall thrust remained the same. I loved some of the elements introduced, like the addiction to the un-visored sun, the ashen crew of the Icarus I, even the religious nutcase captain of the Icarus I all burned to hell from overy exposure to the observation room. The "earth room" was awesome lending a delicate beauty to the Asian crewmember's suicide with the flock of birds flying around him in silhouette. I don't have the dvd, I'd love to hear the science commentary mentioned. The only science I noticed incorrect was the effect of the vacuum of space on the human body. Maybe wiki has more...

Most critics weren't overwhelmed with Trek like they were with any PIXAR movie. Most gave it a pass. I see many movies a year. I don't see one or two art house films like you do. You should get out more.

i have never seen a movie based on this site, i just use it to find out news about movies or to hear about movies i might not have heard about. You would have to be pretty thick to see a movie on harrys recomendation, or chuds. why would anyone go see a movie about gi joe, let alone a movie about gi joe directed by the jackass responsible for van helsing? if you wasted your money on this bullshit don't blame harry blame your own dumbass self for wasting your money/free passes on this. when im on the toilet and look down and see shit im not suprised. neither should anyone who saw gi joe and realized you had been had.

Are STUNNING. Breathtaking. I've watched that film at least 20 times since it came out and I'm still astonished by how brilliant the action scenes are. And it was made on a fraction of the budget most of these big actioners are. Just a brilliant, exciting, terrifying, beautiful film.

Eatin' a tub of cookie dough ice cream, rubbin' one out on his mail order bride, gettin' those sweeeeeeet kick backs from the studio, and clumsily typing up these "reviews", or, as I like to call them, "advertorials."<br><br>
This movie does look great, though.

Its pacing is better than GI Joe though, and it has better actors...however, Joe had much more of a sense of humor, and seemed more expansive and epic? Yes, Joe is a lousy movie, but one with a linear story, something that Star Trek is lacking. I guess that is what happens when you have a plot with so many plot-holes in it, that it becomes like swiss cheese? Where have the quality controls gone in Hollywood???

but sometimes you see something cool that needs to be revisited immediately. I can see a movie made for $30 million with fx that look better than movies made for five times that much money having that affect. <P>
I still don't get the rewatching movies at home on a loop.<P>
There's always something new to watch.

Lets rumble! <p> COM - was a decent flick, but nothing extraordinary. It aimed to be, but it fell flat too many times. It was slow moving. It has nothing to do with attention spans, it has to do with pacing and plotting and writing. A decent film that wanted to be epic, but failed. <p> Sunshine. What a disappointment. 2/3 of an awesome movie, then, Burning man ruined the entire movie. Went completely off the rails and just pissed me off completely. <p> Star(ter) Trek. Aint gonna rehash the plot inconsistencies and oh to convenient coincidences and stupid writing. It was not a bad flick though. It entertained. It was popcorn and JJ Abrams who is not a good director. He does light weight work without a critical eye for detail or writing, and relies far too much on audience forgiveness because after all 'it is only a movie'. That works when you are aiming at a kiddie crowd, but if you want to be accepted a first rank director, and your film to be accepted for more than just a decent passing of two hours, then you had better aim much higher. <p> GI Joe. Well, it was not terrible. It actually is entertaining in a check the brain at the door, go-in-expecting-stupidity way. It does not aim to be more than what it is - a pre-teen boys fantasy, and it delivers. Loads of action, bad acting and plotting and writing and implausible scenarios. Iffy CGI at times, but overall it was entertaining. And with that type of movie you can not ask for more because it never promised to be anything but an implausible pre-teen boys fantasy come to life.

but i still have no desire to ever see, unless its on hbo at 3 in the morning and im drunk/stoned. i certainely don't understand anyone getting angry about it not being a great movie, i don't think you could watch the trailer or be aware of the source material and think it was going to be awesome.

That last movie I saw this year that far exceeded expectations was Star Trek. Everything else ranged from overhyped (Transformers) to dogshit (funny people). There were a few good movies, just not great ones. I felt like ST was this years summer hit for me. I hope "9" rocks and makes me interested in more science fiction. I hope it's not just a gimmick or excuse for CGI.

Harry, I really hope District 9 is thought of as better than Children of Men, I am so tired of people felating that movie. <BR><BR>Yes, yes, it had a great ending.. bravo, well done. Moving, powerful... indeed. That isn't enough to save the movie from what otherwise was bland and predictably similar to "The Handmaid's tale" ( book or movie even ).<BR> I enjoyed it,but it isn't even in the top 20 best SciFi

Spock from the future had the ability to time travel--meaning he could go fowards in time to stop,
or kill Nero, or go backwards in time to stop or kill Nero...and to warn the Federation, in either case, in advance, and or to save Romulus, but he did neither??? Time travel is not new to the Star Trek universe, or the crew of the Enterprise, past, present or future, but at the end of the movie, future Spock was acting as if Vulcan or Romulus, could not be saved...and the original timeline could not be fixed??? No, that was all ignored in order to make a new Vulcan settlement elsewhere? Forget Spock's mom, and Kirk's father...and any other damage done to the timeline??? We'll just move on, like that cannot be dealt with???
<BR><BR>
Now that is swiss cheese of the highest order...and let us not mention the coincidences and plot holes on ice planet Hoth (the Vulcan moon), from young Kirk being marooned there by young Spock, and winding-up in the same cave as future Spock who saves him--to future Spock failing to warn Starfleet of the attack on Vulcan...although he knew of a starbase on the planet/moon, but didn't bother to walk there until young Kirk should up, whom he did not know was coming--only for the two to later run into Scotty who was running the starbase, all by himself??? Even the plot for GI Joe made more sense, and had less plot holes, and that was terrible too.

planet. Did you miss that part? Nero also had Spock's ship. Spock WATCHED his planet explode! Why did you forget that?
When we saw Nero first time in the move, he had already captured, Spock, etc. That's why Spock couldn't do anything until Kirk arrived to help him.

I'm dumb because I don't believe an advance screening that results in a marginally favorable review amounts to selling one's soul?! Wow! How can anyone argue with your airtight investigative research! I guess Paramount conveniently forgot Harry's evisceration of TRANSFORMERS 2 (that resulted in ads being pulled from this site) just in time. Harry must have made a deal where they allowed him to trounce one in exchange for giving the other a pass, right?<P>More and more, I'm starting to understand why you've been banned from various message boards on numerous occassions. You're a borish nerd who spends way too much time on the internet trying to nail various internet personalities to the wall.

thats a hard one as there have nt been many good, let alone great sci-fi movies this decade imho. COM was good, but I watched it about 2 years after it came out, and I have to say I find it overrated. There is much to like about it, and its damn well made and actually has a brain, but it never felt transcendent to me. Sunshine was awsome for the first two thirds (great fx, acting, cinematography etc..) but it completely shoots itself in the foot in the last 20 min or so. Sorry, but when you start ripping off a P.w s anderson movie (event horizon), you know you ve run out of ideas...

good/great sci-fi. The prequals were such dissapointments, though (and I know im going to get shit for this) I think the Matrix sequals are underrated (though very flawed). The Transformers films are just trash, and trek was fun, and entertaining, but im not sure if it qualifies as great sci-fi...

Thanks, Harry! It's great to read such an honest, excited preview for a film. As a fan of badass, dramatic, thought-provoking science fiction, I've been waiting a while for this.<p>
"Children of Men" was a wonderful 2000's film that I own on Blu-ray. I've watched it three or four times and loved it each time.<p>
But "District 9" looks different than this. It has aliens and alien technology. It has huge hovering ships. It has scary-looking alien violence. It shows conflict deeper than human-on-human.<p>
I've managed to steer clear of spoilers, so I still know absolutely nothing about the plot.<p>
Can't wait to see it this Friday.

One day they love a movie, one year later they hate it. If they don't understand it, like CoM or There Will Be Blood, they go to the scorecards, aka the critics, and let them make up their minds. District 9 just looks boring, I'm not wasting money and time on that shit.

It is just the opposite. Far too often geeks are just lemmings. Some influential one's will proclaim something to be true, and voila, the lemmings fall in line. Mouths open, and brains empty. The majority need to feel a part of the 'community' and quickly agree with whatever the 'hot new thing' is. <p>Too afraid that if they show the least bit of hesitation to embrace what should be a geek-gasm movie or event, that one of two disastrous things will occur. <p> That the mainstream will no longer produce geek-fare thus depriving the geek of even the most putrid of entertainment - which is patently ridiculous. Or that they will lose their geek 'cred', like that is worth anything anyway. <p> Then you have the hipper than thou crowd who oppose anything just because the majority like it. <p> Neither is truly making a rational decision.<p> Nothing wrong with liking geek-fare if you truly do - it is all subjective any way. But doing so by knee jerk reaction, or hating it by knee jerk reaction, isan exercise in ignorance.

Ha! Well, it certainly provides a particular form of entertainment, that's for sure. AICN's cast of colorful characters is about as varied as a 64 box of Crayolas. And some are just about as dull, too. Natch.

is a great movie despite the ending and human torch being in it. the burned up man killing the crew comes out of no where and kinda derails the movie but its so cool up until that point that i am willing to overlook its flaws.
<p>
i thought that carlmarkthor guy was a retard after his ncfom rants in some other talkback the other day but now he is beyond classification after he went and saw gi joe and then bitched about it sucking. i don't know what result he was expecting.

Well? Can't we be proud of anything anymore? I realize this isn't chic or trendy, but I've grown sick and tired of being told to hate everyone around me by Hollowood once I've left the theater.<P>Please, please give me a better crutch than Independence Day and Team America.

Exactly. Some of CarlThorMark's remarks were so...stupid...that I'm torn between whether he was just kidding around or he actually believed what he was saying. I'm inclined to believe the latter. After all, he IS the one who G.I. JOE.

this movie actually has nothing to do with america, its actually about the south africa and a multinational corporation putting aliens into concentration camps, though i find it funny that everyone assumes the evil multinational corporation is a reflection on america.

Hey how man times can we address one another by our initials? I mean how cool is that, huh? <p> Ok, I have a friend who can type that fast, he is a journalist. So I suspect that if CTM and Asi are not Nargles - and the jury is still out on that one, that they are writers of some sort, or wannabe writers.

...that FANTASTIC one-cut scene with the ping pong ball grants the movie MAJOR leeway IMO. Masterfully executed. Sure, the rest was too angsty (deservedly) and drawn out (deservedly), but that one take was a marvel.

Saving Private Ryan, maybe? You're right it's tough to find America loving movies.<BR>I'm guessing it's because 50 years of movies only having the ability to take place in New York or L.A. got really old. :)

Given Hollowood's recent stream of anti-American diatribes (subjective, I know) and the incessant anti-Corp angle... do you really blame me and others like me for feeling that way?<P>I know it's essentially centered around Apartheid, but, given Hollowood... will it really be?<P>On first blush, it looks like an analog to Gaza. My opinion and I could be wrong.

Well, when it comes to AICN, I think being referenced by your initials is kind of like a rites of passage-type thing. It's kind of interesting which Talkbackers are referenced in this way.<P>It's possible those guys might be writers of some sort. Although, I tend to think they have way too much time on their hands which allows them to indulge a bit.<P>Nargles? Is that a Harry Potter reference? (Sorry, I actually looked that up...)

most people will be ethnocentric about it and figure its some knock on america even though the director is south african and the movie takes place south africa.
<p>
i am of the opinion that the large multinational corporations like the ones depicted in this movie are subverting democracy and ruining this country so i guess i would like to see more movies that show the way they are fucking us and the whole system over.

Yes, Luna lovegood had her shoes stolen and she suspected Nargles. Methinks old Carl had his shoes stolen as a child as well! <p>
As for being writers, well they generally have lots of time on ther hands. They could be bad journos, or bad novelists, or bad screen writers, but they only need to bang out a story or two per week, and have rest of time free to waste banging out 10,000 word posts on movie websites and hanging around the thread all day long to respond to every response!

older people seem so quick to dismiss films as having no chance of being classic. or so quick to write everything off as lame and boring and over rated.
if half you fuckers were around in the 70's i have no doubt you would all be talking about the godfather being a fucking overlong snorefest and over rated and that a new hope was a lame kiddies film with shitty dialogue. I truly District 9 has a chance to be remembered as a classic piece of sci fi. I believe that. It is what we all claim to want...a smart action film. It has spectacle without being empty. it is not heavy handed with its message it doesn't bash you over the head. Its is genuinely exciting, violent, fun and original.

he still cant get why most people with taste in sci-fi/genre film dont like Bay's Transformers movies. As flawed and dissapointing as the Matrix sequals were, i will still take them any day over Bay's crapfests thank you. At least they are nt dumber than an inbred hillbilly, and actually are about something, you know, like actual sci-fi?

That's a little excessive. I liked the movie, but I'll only revisit it again when I have the hankering for an Event Horizon/Sunshine double feature. <P>
See lockypoo, sometimes people can have adult conversations without resorting to diatribes of unprovoked vehemence. <P>
You silly little weasel you.

the once in a blue moon Stephen King column that is. <P>
Any magazine that places Tom Cruise's Lestat over Lugosi or Lee's Dracula as the better cinematic vampire is just plain old fuckin' insane. And not in a good way.

Agreed, m'friend. I've been a subscriber to EW since 1992 and it's just gotten progressively worse over the years. Key word: "progressive." Every issue MUST include something about Fey and/or Clooney, and the hipster writers they emply seem to think Lestat is somehow greater than Lugosi & Lee as you mentioned. Will not be renewing said subscription.

makes me cool. Actually it just means I have some taste, and actually expect something with intelligence above the average saterday morning cartoon. But you keep fighting that good fight regarding TF2. Some day you may actually convince one or two serious sc-fi fans that its good. Though probably only after they have been in a major car accident that resulted in massive brain damage. That way they can watch Tf2 in the proper manner....

always get upset that so many hate it and use it as a reference point for how bad or not bad anything is. Again, if you like it, good for you. But you have to realize that that makes it difficult to take anything else you say very seriously, especially when you criticize films like the Matrix or Up, or whatever....Do you ever wonder why you get attacked so much on these talkbacks Lock?

Just got back from the Miami screening. It met my expectations and surpassed them. It's amazing how the trailers and commercials really only show you about a 1/3 of the story. It took my by surprise, and that's something that can't be said about any other summer movie. I'm sure there will be a few haters, because as with everything that people love there will be the elitist jerks who wish to be different. I already heard some asshole on the way out making a Jar-Jar Binks reference (which is completely unwarranted because there is ZERO cute kids humor in this movie), but I'm willing to bet this will be the one movie of the year that will have most positive reaction from talkbackers.

I really wanted to reply to som e of the complete madness you lot speak here, but you know what? I've said it before. It's like the sort of stuff you see written in shit on the walls of a mental asylum. I don't know where to even start. Really I don't :S

man, a lot of you knuckle-heads have exquisite taste<p>an event horizon, sunshine double feature night...<p>wow!<p>where do i point my pistol?<p>startrek is the only dvd i'm buying this year too! lol kittens are eating my stomach! I love discs! I love ears and the fact that adam yauch has cancer in his throat!<p> my balls itch.<P>but i hate bathing.<p>pan's maze was i solemnly swear a movie i saw that seemed like a few other movies i saw, POWDER not included<p>powder!

Okay, so after my earlier minor rant about CHILDREN OF MEN (which I stand by, and those arrogant pricks who claim those who don't like it don't understand it need a fucking slap btw) I decided I'd finally watch SUNSHINE! Beautiful movie, but what a shit last third! I was hoping for an alien, and I got mr. forgot-the-sunblock - SHITE! I thought STAR TREK was enjoyable enough, except for the whole ejecting the warp core/black hole bit at the end which really pisses me off the more I think about it. MOON was very enjoyable, but nothing original. I still say 2001 is the most over-rated piece of shit ever made. TRANSFORMERS was fucking terrible, which made it unlikely I'll ever see the sequel. G.I JOE shall never cross my eyeballs.
Just my opinion, which is as valid as any other TalkBacker's.

ha!<p> quit having opinions then pal, because yours fucking suck.<p> and you might as well go JOE because I'm sure you could summarize your experience in some horribly trite fashion as evidenced by your above prattle and then thump your chest about<p> i hope your fingers crinkle up and you fall mute.<p>bitch

ensuring that everybody rips you a new one on these talkbacks, because frankly now you deserve it....Its guys like you that have led to the dumbing down of movies and ensuring that we mostly just get movies made for teens/retards as opposed to adults because you help make garbage like TF2 make a lot of money. Thanks Lock.....

with you about 2001, I also find it very overrated and pretensious. However, it was ground breaking at the time, and it is damn well made/directed. It would be insane to deny its influence or the skill that went into making it.

designed, filmed, acted movie, but man does that third act suck....Could have been a sci-fi classic if Boyle did nt try so hard to be unconventional with the third act imho. He should have played it out more conventionally I think....

much patience with movies anymore, thanks to Bay many cant handle an actual story and characterization anymore, all they expect are fast cut editing, fuckall internal logic, and a story that a 5 year old could follow....

lock? Or is a lack of reading ability part of your general stupidity. I have mentioned many movies (both good and bad) that I like and dislike. Oh..and please find posts where I just attack people for their opinions. You are the one that attacks many movies all the time, but useally good/adult/intelligent movies. All thye while having hissy fits because most people on the aicn talkbacks dont like Bay's movies or that pos TF2. Sorry pal but that gives you very little credibility to then shit all over film like COM, The Matrix, etc...if you dont like them fine, thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. But then stop defending Transformers, just admit you like it, and accept why so many hate it and use it as a reference point for crappyness....

fair enough, this is actually getting really childish. Lets just agree to disagree dude. We all have different tastes etc, and theres nothing wrong with that. How about we just declare a truce and go our seperate ways?

You never specifically addressed any of my points about the numerous time travel plot holes in the movie, and that speaks volumes about your lack of faith in the film. The only thing clear here, is that you didn't understand the movie, or the story, not me, the reason why you can't explain yourself out of the time travel plot holes that I detailed. If you can argue those points fluidly, I will takes my hat off to you, and give you congratulations openly, for all here...to see, but you can't...and you won't.

whether you like the bayformers or not, if you spend money seeing it in the theater, thus contributing to its gigantic opening weekend gross, then you are all helping the further dumbing down on movies.
<p>
skip the next movie bay makes. or wait and see on dvd/hbo. if you get hyped up by the marketing machine and support it in theater, you are just as much to blame. talking shit about the movie now is not going to wash away your guilt.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about Star Trek, I'm just going to say you're an annoying putz whose comments about writing make me contemplate vomiting. <p> Just like with sex, discussing how 'great' you are makes you come across like an arrogant clod who - in reality - couldn't please anyone if he tried.

Wouldn't that have made it, uhhh, ALIEN? I mean, spaceship is on a mission in space, mission gets diverted because of distress call, ALIEN eats said crew? Sounds pretty ALIEN-esque to me. <br> <br> And if there was no Burning Man at the end of SUNSHINE and they just continued to have mechanical problems, then you just have APOLLO 13. I thought the religious fanatic Burning Man third act was a great twist and it worked for me.

Wolverine - pales to what Marvel offered last summer. never liked Jackman in the role. I want short, stout, burly Wolverine. someone please restart the X-Men franchise.<p>Star Trek - Grade A popcorn flick. sure there were script problems and things i didn't like, but it was better than over half the other ST films. it was fun and I thought the cast did an admirable job.<p>Terminator 4 - talk about your blown opportunities. had one or two good action sequences, and was impressed by Yelchin's Reese, but story should have stuck closer to Cameron's original vision.<p>Up - literally dozed off, but saw it in vegas after being up late the night before. even after a second viewing, i doubt i'll be that impressed by it. Wall-E was not that good either. frankly, i think Brad Bird is the only good feature animation director working now.<p>The Hangover - it was funny. no complaints really. just what i like to see from a comedy. and not obnoxiously long either. apatow, please take notes - no comedy should ever hit the 2 hr mark, let alone the 2 1/2 hr mark!<p>Bruno - it made me laugh a lot. admire Cohen's bravery, but simply was not as inspired as Borat. granted, he had a much more difficult time getting interviews and good footage for this one.<p>TF2 - after seeing The Hangover, I theater-hopped to see this, figuring if i didn't pay to see it, what could it hurt? well, it hurt. hurt real bad. in fact, despite the free entry, i still paid a price - with my soul. i did laugh at the "scrotum" line, but damn you michael bay - DAMN YOU!<p>Public Enemies - got to see Michael Mann in person at the Chicago AICN screening, which was very cool. movie itself felt pretty flat though. may give it another go on dvd. i generally like Mann's work.<p>That's been it for me this summer. Unemployed and broke most of the time, otherwise, I'd have fit in Hurt Locker and Moon as well by now. Don't give a shit about Harry Potter. Looking forward to District 9 and Inglorious Basterds. Was considering theater-hopping to G.I.Joe, but after that TF2 experience, not sure if I want to go there again. It was fun to theater-hop though. Hadn't done that in ages.

... is it "FUN?" You know, "G.I. JOE" style fun! Does it "recapture your childhood when you used to bang action figures together" in movie form? Hate to beat a dead horse here, but you CANNOT possibly expect clemency so soon for your studio-funded Jihad against integrity, last week. How was BARBADOS?

Star Trek, Not Perfect, but thoroughly enjoyable sci-fi fun that was worth price of admission lazy plot hole and screeching Scotty and all!
- Terminator 4, streamed of the internet while getting high, terrible movie, just terrible!
- Up , havn’t seen it yet because Pixar thought it would be a good idea to release this in Europe 5 or 6 months after its US release which means I will be available to download a DVD rip during the cinema release so guess what ill be doing!
- The Hangover, good , but not as good as what its hyped up to be, after seeing this I have decided to never see a comedy in the cinema ever again, as its more fun watching them at home with a load of friends around, (also you can smoke and drink).
- - Bruno, hyped just like borat and not worth the price of admission for its only 5 minutes long, funny but not funny enough to justify paying for. The Ali-G show had more sophisticated jokes with the bruno and borat characters.I downloaded a copy and am glad I did!
- - TF2 streamed of a Chinese site grainy cam and all just like the first one, no regrets and the satisfaction that I didn’t pay a penny to the Bay foundation-for-people-who-have –trouble-making-movies-good-and-want-to-do-other-stuff-good-too. Probably a good movie if your 10 or have down syndrome!
- - Public Enemies huge disappointment with shitty shaky cam digital shit,shit cheap shit no point to any of it, don’t want to think about it any more.
- - Hurt Locker Forgot this was out looks good, will go see!
- Moon ‘ loved the retro feel and good acting , highly recommended ,I’d urge anyone to see this!
- Harry Potter. Couldn’t get through the first one because of the shit acting and meandering plot, the kids still cant act so I wont ever watch the speccy little fucker.
- District 9 . looking forward to , but Harrys rave review puts a chill down my spine.
- Inglorious Basterds. Smug Pitt ,(whats with the eyebrows?) no thanks!
- G.I.Joe, Probably DL a when a good copy show up, might be watchable , don’t really care either way.
Over all a pretty shitty year in movies, mostly crap after crap, the type of year that would put an end to some people’s enthusiasm for movies in general. Cant wait to get out of 2009.

Alls ahm sayin is whilst I was in a theater at midnight last Thursday subjecting myself to G.I. JOE (at the suggestion of Mr. Knowles and Devin "Anti-Avatar" Faraci amongst others) the airliner carrying the bulk of Paramount's puchased geek-website "journalists" was probably just lifting off of the runway, destination: a weekend of fun in the sun- Stephen Sommers style. G.I. JOE made TRANSFORMERS 2 look like the fucking DEER HUNTER, man.

that fuckface gimp Farci gives T4 four stars for his empire review, and 8.5!! for gijoe, yet he has already made up his mind that Avatar will suck because of his beef with fox. He is such a sell-out hack with an agenda. But then again he thinks TDK is overrated and he gushes over Harry Potter more than a Japanese school girl. So I for one hope he really hates Avatar, because then I know it will be awsome......

a problem with the concept of a deranged killer, and I agree with you that there should have been no alien, but the last act was handled so badly dude, it was too similar to event horizon (and as I have said if you start ripping off a Paul ws Anderson movie, you have seriously ru out of ideas imho), and it was filmed in such an annoying manner...

On a lark I checked out 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea from the library to watch with my 6 year old daughter. I liked it as a kid and thought it would be a fun time but DAMN. That is a GREAT movie. It was a lot deeper than I remember, probly cause I just didn't get all the philisophical stuff back then. Anyway, check it out before somebody decides to remake it into a crapfest.

Both movies are fun, if decidedly flawed, films. Both have similar settings. Hence a double feature.<P>
If I demanded logic or flawless continuity from all of the movies I watched, in order to enjoy them, well my list of enjoyed films would be very small indeed.<P>
When I sit down to watch a movie I expect just one thing, to be entertained. Anything else beyond the immediate enjoyment of a film is usually gleaned in reflection.<P>
My initial reaction to a film versus how much I think about it afterward is usually how I determine the quality of a film. <P>
Is this a terribly hard concept?

This one snuck up on me when I saw the "target" one sheet. The thing just FEELS right. I'm trying to keep expectations reasonable, so as to not be too disappointed.
<p>
Thanks for THAT, Harry ;)
I've also kept pretty spoiler free. I managed to avoid the ones above, but can admins label spoilers in the headline?

I WAS AT THE MIAMI SCREENING LAST NIGHT.....FUCK ME, THIS FILM IS GOOD. GOOD ON SO MANY LEVELS, ITS NUTS.THE BEST FILM OF 2009 BAR NONE.THE ABOSLUTE BEST.IF YOU HAVN'T SEEN IT-SHUT THE FUCK UP AND WATCH IT.IT'S FUNNY, ITS MOVING,ITS ACTION PACKED,ITS COMPLETELY UN-HOLLYWOOD, WITH THE MOST UNUSUAL MOVIE BEATS(WHICH WAS SATISFYING!!!)...AND I AM THERE FOR DISTRICT 10!!!! NEIL ADN THE ACTOR ARE CLASS ACTS, AND SO IS AINTITCOOL for doing this in Miami(I hope for many more)-AND OZY WAS A DAMN COOL DUDE!

SUNSHINE? Really...REEEAAAALLLLYYYY? Some nice imagery in that film, but as a movie it was a box of ass. Making little sense, or not being able to convey the sense of your story, does not make a movie deep or good.

For my first post, I would first like to establish how pumped I am for this movie. Secondly I would like to once and for all squash any notion that Moon was a fantastic film. I thought it was incredibly boring, and wasted its potential. The first half was good. Second half was baaad.

I figured this would become the defacto home talkback about D-9, so I decided to throw my thoughts on the film in this talkback as well as the LA screening talkback..........
Thanks for the screening of this effin great film. My thoughts were provoked, my sensibilities were revolted, my teeth were clenched and my ass was on the edge of my seat! Is this the messiah of sci fi films? I think not. Is it perfect, again, I think not. Some plot holes and a second act that falls prey to the action hero complex keep it from being a truly upper echelon film. However, I think Neil dug deep and swung for the fence, and he hit a SOLID home run, just not quite a grand slam. But a first time feature length director hitting the sweet spot with a sci fi / action film on a $30 million budget is an AMAZING feat. If I was Spielberg, I’d have two names on my short list for directing Halo, Neil (there is do doubt after seeing D-9 why Peter Jackson selected Neil in his ill fated Halo try) or Carl Erik Rinsch (whom Ridley Scott had in mind to help the upcoming Alien prequel, check out his commercial’s here… http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/ 05/27/the-commercials-of-carl- erik-rinsch/ ). Come on Steve, don’t let anyone else touch Halo, for the love of GOD! And, I would be remiss not to mention Sharlto Copley, who’s OUTSTANDING performance took what could have been a good, fun sci fi film and turned it into a riveting, great sci fi film. Go see it. It’s not perfect, but it’s head and shoulders above the normal sci fi stuff hitting the screens as of late.

I think it was pretty perfect.Not one thing I would change.Not bashing you though, i like your opnions on the directors for HALO-and goddamn SHARLOT COPLEY was great,he elevated the damn film.Near the end, when he tells Christopher(?) the alien some stuff(trying to avoid SPOILERS)-that was some serious ACTING!!

I must say I wouldn't change a whole lot. I loved the first act and the third act kicked absolute ass, but I felt the second act had a couple rough patches. As with your attempt to avoid spoilers it's hard to point out specifics, but I feel comfortable saying that some of the events that happened seemed to be a tad TOO easy. They erred on the side of action flick conventions that I would expect from the Die Hard franchise. To me it just felt like those small shortcomings (but shortcomings non the less) prevented the film from hitting the perfect pitch the entire way through. That being said, the vast majority of the film did it for me. And the more I think about it, the more I want to see it again. Besides, I got the free screening from here, now I need to pay for it to support one of the best original sci fi movies in years. Now I’ve got to get all my friends to come out and see it with me as well!

There were scenes in the movie that had me flat out squirming. Of course the situations, in and of themselves, had me feeling uncomfortable in my skin, but it was Copley’s flawless performance during those situations that sold them!

I share with you a bit of the same opinion about Sunshine. there's much in that movie i really like, which makes me feel even more upset by the fuck ups the movie comits, specially toward the ending, and most specially the last part. I really don't have a problem with a killer by the end of the movie,a nd i do think it does tie with the rest of the movie, specially considering that the killer is a religious fanatic, which is quite fitting. But it's the execution that really irritates and disapoints me. to have a movie whihc, despiste some dumb concessions to comemrcialism, had so far been pretty cerebral and thoughful, and inthe last act to descent intoa repetition of Event Horizont with a Freddy Krugger wannabe running aropund, that shit is disapointing beyond believe. I can't even believe the movie went that route. It's a betrayal of what went before. It's as if Danny Boyle hasd lost all the strenght of his convictions and decided to play safe. Most disapointing.<br<br>However, if you are thinking in renting the movie's DVD, i cna't urge you enough to check out the audio comentary by the movie's scientific adviser Brian Cox. No, it's not Brian Cox the scotish actor, it's a younger guy, an english physicist. The guy is most informative and entertaining, and if people fear his comentary is a long science lecture, in fact he spends half the comentary speaking about the movie itself and the plot and action and the characters and his involvement in the movie. Mostly, it's fun to hear him talk on how the character of Cilliam Murphy was based on him,, to the poitn of even Murphy having his hair style. In fact, Murphy is almost a dead ringer for Brian Cox. Of cours,e Cox does still talk about the scienc ein the movie, and he's quite forgiving when the movie decides to go on artistic libertie,s which Cox is pretty col about. except on some ocasions which it's fun to notice there's thing that he does find grating and test his pacience, like the scene where there is instant frezzing by an astronaut when exposed to the vaccum of space in the shadow. It's funny to see the exasperation in his voice, evne if he tries to keep civil and and non judgemental. Check it out.

brav-fucking-o!
I like your writing sir!
I look forward to seeing more of your reviews.I got the screennig too,it was a fun event.I hope Neil and Copley go very far-they seem as un-jaded as they come so far!Hope hollywood bends over after Fox fucked him.

you forgot the dominican republic and venezuela, i live in detroit and i think are whole team is either venezuelan or dominican.
<P>
and zombie, i was just foolin around i agree with you most of the time. just having a laugh. "get over yourself"

AsminovLives is quite right, that I used a few baseball terms in my mini review, and I may need to convert those terms into regular terms for a few of the AICN regulars… 1) Home Run… A home run (or homer) is a base hit in which the batter is able to circle all the bases, ending at home plate and scoring a run himself. 2)Swung for the fence… Try to hit a home run. 3)Grand Slam - Home run hit with the bases loaded. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_baseball_jargon if you need further clarification! (Sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation, there were some “special” folks in line yesterday!).

That sound slike football to me, when foreign fill complete temas form one country. And by football, i really mean the game that really deserves to be called football, and which for some extremely byzarre and uncompreensible reason americans call soccer to distiguish form a game they call football and which they don't use the feet to play!

Trust me, from a foreigner perspective, like say an european, baseball is a complete mystery, even with the explanations.<br><br>So, basically, what you wanted to say was that the movie is good from begining to end, is that right?

AsimovLives, please tell me you saw the baseball terms joke post I made in the LA screening and you couldn't help but make a joke playing off of that! When I posted that review I couldn't help myself from making the follow up post. When I threw the review on this Talkback I thought it would be pretentious of me to bring the joke over as well. Then you set it up for me and I, of course, had to knock it down. Thanks!

I think it's important to note that American football players DO use their feet... to move up and down the field! Ok, I know, that's lame. Americans call Football Soccer because, as in MANY other examples, we are often pompous self absorbed asses who are unwilling to concede that there is a world around us! I am an American football fan, but I realize our “football” has almost no reason to be called that!

except in the FX department. Although, if I spent all that money on FX I'd try to have as many lingering shots of said FX as possible. <P>
Or, here's a novel idea, everybody is entitled to an opinion and each individual's opinion is subjective and devoid of any intrinsic value. <P>
Of course my opinions are right, merely by being mine.

I have not seen Sunshine, so I cannot speak as someone in a position of authority on the matter, but I'm confident it, or damn near any movie ever made, was better than Transformer's 2. It... was... drivel!

was the fact that they evolved (or in some cases DEVOLVED). They take a life of their own which is where the entertainment comes into play. I'm quite sure someone will jump in and bring us back to D-9. But in the mean time, some TF2 bashing is a worthwhile endeavor!

For me, it was "Dude, Where's My Car" without the single laugh of that movie.<p>Still, everyone has a different sense of humor I guess. I'm holding out for the next season of "Eastbound And Down" for my comedy injection.

If not maybe it's time to move on, cowpoke. It's really annoying trying to talk to someone who can't even slightly understand why another person (or persons) might consider Transformers 2 to not be such a good movie. <P>
Now imagine how annoying it is trying to type at such a person.

The SFX in Sunshine worked to the benefit of the movie. The SFX in Transformers are not even easily visible and are poorly designed and over-complicated for no good reason. That's bad SFX. sunshine wins flat out. And the fact they were made at a fraction of the the SFx of Transformers makes them so much the better. I wipe my ass on the Transformer's SFX.

is not in the movie itself, but in the extras in the DVD, whcn Jar Jar Abrams says in the documentary that he thinks that he noticed that America doesn't have it's own iconic monster, the same way that Japan as Godzilla, so he decided to create the great iconic american monster, to fill the gap. What makes me laugh so much is that, aparently, that retarded fucking idiot Jar Jar Abrams must have never heard of King Kong. That stupid ass Jar Jar Abrams has to be one of the most ignorant retarded over-egomaniac idiotic shit i ever had the displeasure to know it exists. What a fucking retard!

You are being self conscious about what everyone else thinks instead of pressing forth with your own views? Then you aren't worth debating if you can't think for yourself, rather than waiting for the chorus to join in before you make a comment of your own.

CoM...I dozed off. It had a bunch of familiar, top-knotch ingredients that just didn't gel into a top-knotch dish.
Was D9...MATRIX "good"? Was it ALIENS "good"? Was it even Predator "good"?
Was it 'Dark Knight' Heath Ledger Joker "good"?
Was it Platoon "good" in terms of impact?

Shaky cam was fine because duh! that's what it was...a bunch of dopes scattering like mice trying to film all hell breaking loose. <p>
I liked the shot from the hellicopter when dude filmed the monster getting bombed and going down in a cloud of smoke. That clown is all "yyyeeeaahhh that's what I'm talkin about" and WHAM...slapped out of the sky. I was entertained.

if Bandslam gets #1 this weekend. Especially also with Ponyo coming out this weekend, and Time Traveler's Wife doesn't look like its gonna be so bad either, but yes District 9 is the movie I want to see this weekend, thanks in large part to Harry's review.

Yes it is truly a groundbreaking concept, except I think Serling did it first, and then Brother From Another Planet, and Enemy Mine, and Alien Nation, and...
Enough with the safe morality tales--let's have the aliens wanting to get married to humans, now we are talking cutting edge!

It still cost $30 million to make and was shot on RED. Remember when $30 million could buy you an Empire Strikes Back?
Another thing with this movie is the implausibility of aliens being dumped in a ghetto. They would have been rounded up and a large number wiped out to fit into quarantine. No way they would be let to roam about, spreading potential disease. Once AIDS happened, those aliens would have been blamed for it.
And world governments wouldnt dump the problem in South Africa. No way.
I do like the idea of a non North American location(but the heavy handed moral parable is too much).

it was cool to see a giant monster attack from that view point. The concept wasn't that original or anything, but the ground level point of view made it feel fresh. It was definetly better on DVD which I suppose people will take as proof of abrams movies having tv sensibilities.

the trailer is the movie, its a great movie, but they give everything away in ads. <P> except for one character.<P> it was hilarious reading fatharry's reviews on here that there is so much more and you will have no idea what you will witness when you see it. <P> lies. see it, cuz its awesome, but you know what happens.

Just came back from watching. I have to agree with the consensus that it is the best movie this year so far. The only complaint I have about this movie is the shaky cam at the beginning part of the movie and also at the very end. The shaky parts are supposedly documentary clips telling the story of Wikus, the protagonist. But rather than add to the feel of it, the shakiness is just nauseating. They just over did it.<p>
But after a while into the movie, they got out of the documentary mode and things couldn't be any better. And as far as the effects go, there only 3 scenes that look "cheap", the rest will have you believing these "prawns" are real. After seeing how good the effects are in this, I have no doubt that my eyeballs are going to get fucked come December.<p>
This is one of those movies that teases you that it's nearing the end, but inside, you go "No, I want more. It can't end like this", and the movie hears you and gives you more. And it's primed for a great sequel. The potential that this franchise has is just enormous. The way they can expand the story is just limitless and all of them can add to it's lore. This is a classic franchise in the making.

I think there could be a sequel, just as long as it isn't 28 Weeks Later, if you know what I mean. I would want it written & directed by Blomkamp (imagine what he could do with $100m?)<p>
Sharlto Copley was amazing, even without considering his total lack of experience. If there was some kind of "best new talent" Oscar he would own it.

I can't help but think that people who dismiss that movie or think it's a bad movie really must have some serious problems. How can anybody now see what a really great movie it is, movie geeks of all people? It boggles the mind!

Some people have this very weird absurd complain that district 9 is cliched because it shows aliens as persecutd by humans. And i'm like, as opposed to 100 years of science fiction, where the aleins have been mostly portaited as invaders, slavers and exterminators of the human race. It's rare to find SF where the humans are the bastards and the aliens the victims, and that's literature. In movie form, it's nigh on nonexistent.<br><br>The oldest depiction of humans as invasors and bastards and the aliens as victims i can find is from ursula L. LeGuinn's The Word For World Is Forest, a book published in 1976. In comic,s the earlier depiction of that idea is in 2000AD's Nemesis The Warlock first published in 1980. In movies, i can't think right off the bat of any example of that. E.T. doesn't count, because the humans in that dso not want to deliberatly kill ET. And in Alien Nation, the villains turn out to be a group of aliens, not humans.<br><br>So, you guys who are criticising District 9 for being a cliched representation of a tired idea, you guys couldn't be more wrong. It has not been portaited in movies with any great relevance, much less became a cliche. If you are going to criticise district 9, do it with for real legit reasons, not fantasy.

the aliens allegory in d9 is more about American Army/ oldiers's treatings of the people in Gitmo and the whole loss of rights/ beating of the detainess,etc(To a certain extent)-becuase really, the MAIN GOAL is to entertain, and in order to achieve that level of reality(that they wanted)-I think the filmmakers realzied we have to be SOLD on the whole concept first.So,they had to ground some of the large concepts in something we're familiar with, and the atrocios war-acts that we've all heard/seen-and know IS real(ala:Guantanamo bay,etc.).So, thats what great about d9-its NOT some heavy-handed wartime/politcal allegory.But they wanted to make a very real alien film- THATS WHY they did it.And it works, because WHEN you see D9-you are utterly convinced it's real,and you REALLY get swept up in the fucknig emotion of the alien's plight-especially once The main character gets sucked in.The framework was genius-and they left jsut enough OUT(and hinted enoguh in it also) to warrant a very good sequel!

I didn't see it as Sci-Fi as much as social commentary in a near-future setting. The only real "sci" in it is the concept of spontaneous worldwide sterilization, but other than that and a general dystopian outlook, it's pretty recognizable as our reality. Not like Moon or D9, which are a little more out-there than CoM. <p> Strawberry Cough, though, that's a pretty outlandish concept.

Just got back from the Seattle show. Me and my girl were chattering like little kids the entire ride back. District 9 is incredible, BELIEVE the hype.
<P>
Thanks so much for the free movie AICN and Harry. I had a blast. Great crowd to see it with, too.
<P>
Except for a few people that laughed, LOUDLY, at parts that I kinda felt that didn't quite GET, maybe? I really don't want to sound like a pretentious douche here, but things like the aliens being addicted to cat food, and humans calling the aliens 'prawns', were really depressing things to me. They lived in poverty and were being called racial slurs. Other people thought that shit was hilarious. I don't know. To each their own.
<P>
It definitely was not a big deal. I'm not trying to be a grumpy goof. The movie was absolutely incredible.
<P>
Doggystyle with the demon.

both of these movies are NOT ABOUT anything..
Blade Runner, 2001, truly GREAT movies are about something, even Logans Run and the original Rollerball are about something (many levels usually)
CoFM and Sunshine not so much just stuff happening to people, no greater perspective, nothing to learn from them..
try silent running or clockwork orange boys, you don't even know what you're talking about.
If you list the matrix movies as part of your argument, u really don't get it..
soylent green, andreomeda strain, alien, aliens, terminator, predator, the thing (russell)
those are all sci fi that are ABOUT SOMETHING, with multiple levels and character development and plenty of kick ass to boot...

the Kentucky Fried Man who has out of joint of space/time showed up -- I could no longer suspend disbelief when the ENTIRE rest of the crew went for a nap when that one guy had to perform the task of turning the ship which had the potential to doom them if not followed to the letter. The cinematography was the most gorgeous, thing, though; it kept me to the end of the movie.

I am not even angry anymore...
I knew (even before seeing District 9) that neil blomkamp was the real deal. I knew it from his short film work.
Anybody with some knowledge and ability in film making would know he is the real deal.
Halo would have been one of the biggest films of all time if given to this guy.
Not even spielberg or cameron (yes I love cameron, but not even him) would be able to make halo work in the way that this guy can.
It's funny/ironic to think that for all of Hollywood's fixation on profits, they continue to pump out pathetic rubbish that has been shown in the past to fail...
Hollywood will never be redeemed unless they give this guy his chance to finally make Halo. If they don't give him the opportunity, Hollywood has ZERO credibility...
Without blomkamp making halo, everybody can go and get fuc_ked. I will just download it off the net, like every other pathetic movie hollywood releases year after year.

..and this movie was amazing. Probably going to go see it again today. The violence is on a Starship Troopers (the original movie) level, but given the context I wouldn't call it overly-violent. It fits. I'm kind of surprised this film isn't getting more comparisons to Enemy Mine from back in '85. I don't think too may people have seen that one though...

If I am trying to sale a small stool to a person who is only in the market for a table, I simply tell them that the stool IS a table, only it's very small, and meant for ornamentation of the household, maybe only hold one picture framed on it. Then the table-shopper goes, "Oh, okay." And then she buys the stool, feeling better about the purchase because I have labled it "table" instead of "stool." The table-shopper has a psychological schima in mind for "table," it means something different to her and others--that's why we have table makers who enjoy what they do and others who couldn't give a shit about a table.
Packaging.
It's how I package the sell. If I tell a friend that my girlfriend believes that there is a powerful, bearded sorcerer who controls the universe by casting spells, he would say I'm dating an idiot. Then, when I say to him, "Oh, you mean you don't believe in God, either?" he will look at me blank-faced for a moment, and then say, "Well, er, NO, I mean YES, I believe in God, just not a bearded sorcerer in the sky who casts spells."
Yet, they are the same. God said "Let there be light," and it was so. He cast a spell. Thus, God is a spellcaster, a "sorcerer." But it's unacceptable to call him that. If I package his act as "God," then it is okay.
It's all about how you package it. I feel this should clarify a few matters.
P.S. They make psychiatrists get psychoanalyzed before getting certified, but they don't make a surgeon get cut on. Does that seem right to you?

-and if anything felt it was better than Terminator IV, Aliens and Demons(okay angels and..), and yes, I will say it-Trek. Fuck you too. <p> Up was fun. I skipped GI Jose, Potter IX and some others, half forgot about Public Enemas already. I AM interested in seeing both this and the Hurt Locker just because most of this summer's stuff was SO braindead-Mikey Bay revels in that-so sure, I'll give this one a lookee. <p> Harold falls prey to (highly suspect) payola charges and is an easy target for some of these things (GI Jose?! really Harold you liked that?!) despite himself. I've NO intention of watching Cokey's latest opus but will certain check out this latest offering from the House of Sir Petey Jax just because. Prawns=Kaffirs. Got it.

"The aliens themselves are pretty repulsive looking, buzzing with flies - you can tell that they stink and live in squalor... but that they are in this shape, this squalor and decay... that is a shame at another level."
And my head exploded. Needless to say I didn't finish the review. Please learn to write. Thank you.

Definitly worth seeing in a theater. Acting of the supporting cast was weak. The main star or two did a good job. Story is basically Apartheid meets Robocop-level out of control Privatization of goernment functions. That alone should tell you how fucked up the "private company" makes o things and how twisted they are. Best actor was a non-human so whomever did the motion capture work + computer animation deserves a kudos. There was one quick sentence straight out of Nazi dictrine. A few scenes were chilling. Overall I think the movie was very good but not the unbelievable masterpiece that people write about-- I think it is becomming a little too PC to say anything else about this very good film. A lot of the acting was "eh" and amateurish. But the overall story and saga of the aliens was well done, despite a couple of glaring plot holes
I give it 3/4 stars.

I'm sorry to be the voice of dissent, but this film barely rated a C for me, and my wife HATED it. (Spoilers follow) My major problems: 1.) Too many holes in the logic. If you stop to ask 'why' for many of the things in the movie, there is no reasonable answer. Why cat food and not other foods? Christopher needed to collect liquid for 20 years to get the job done, but a bunch of it leaks and he could still get it done? Why was Christopher so different? How could the aliens have lived with us for 20 years and we still have no idea whether the ship returning home would lead to war or not? 2.) There has a message for the film, but it betrayed that message. First of all, it hit you over the head with the message so hard that the characters in the film would have felt at home in a melodrama. The characters were established, but they kept on reestablishing the same things over and over for the first hour of the film. Secondly, the entire 'prawn' race was portrayed as being pretty much all the same with the exception of 2 or 3 members of the race. "They're all the same" really doesn't fit with the message of the film. The characters in the film could perceive the "prawns" to all be the same without betraying the message, but the audience needed to see differentiation in the characters. 3.) The main character was written with the personality of a supporting character. He had minimal depth. His 'zero's journey' was not a progression - it was a series of sudden shifts from second string character to second string character. First he's the bumbling jerk. Then he's the bumbling victim. Then he's the die hard lieutenant. I couldn't relate to the transitions. 4.) The story felt incomplete. I understand that this was intentional, but there were too many holes left open at the end for me to feel that the story was worthwhile. ------ They did great things with the visual look of the film, but quite frankly, great things with visual effects are the norm for the era in sci-fi. I would not see it again, and I'd wait for Netflix for a sequel.

WAS THAT A GREAT EYEBALL FUCKING MOVIE OR WHAT??? THAT MOVIE WAS THE ABSOLUTE SHIT OF THE DECADE! THAT REALLY GOOD SHIT! YOU KNOW THE KIND! THAT LONG UNBREAKABLE MOTHERFUCKER! I'LL SCRATCH & SNIFF THAT ONE ALL DAY BA-BAY! YOU GOTTA HAVE GOALS! -GEORGE THE SEVENTH CHICKEN! Wait...

First off, human civilization has spent hundreds of years wondering what or who exists in outer space. As a whole, we have spent trillions of dollars and endless man hours trying to develop technology that will not only allow us to travel into space and/or communicate with any alien species that might be trying to contact us. So the very notion that we would so quickly dismiss an alien species that has managed to travel to our planet is completely and utterly retarded. As if human beings, who have spent their entire lives dreaming about an event like this, would allow a spaceship the size of Manhattan to just float there for twenty years without some type of global effort to extricate every last bit of technological insight that we could find from the ship and its inhabitants. No, instead the director wants us to believe that we would be so overwhelmed by some type of innate racism that we would be completely blind to the potential life-changing discoveries that might be found. Sure, you could take the opposite approach and say that we would take a defensive position and set out to destroy the potential threat of the alien race or that it might ignite a world war, but to say that over the course of just twenty years we would come to ignore them and/or see them as a nuisance is just idiotic. As if, in the meantime, NASA engineers would just go about their business spending years of their lives trying to build remote control robots that travel to Mars to take pictures. If you buy into the worldview that this movie presents in any way- that humans are that evil, pathetic, and/or apathetic- then I feel sorry for you. You can point to all of the examples of racism, etc. in our history that you want and they still do not add up to "District 9." To compare how humans treat other humans to how we would treat aliens from another planet is just assenine. We simply have more sense than that.
That being said, I agree with most of the plot-holes mentioned in previous posts, here are a few more -
-Christopher has been accumulating the space juice for twenty years. It is the key to his species survival and the only way he can return to his planet. Yet, when humans come knocking on his door he trusts his child to hide it (and in a cupboard of all places). This is especially retarded considering that they also happen to be hiding an enormous spaceship beneath them. So why not hide the juice inside the ship and lock the door?
-Wikus' wife, the love of his life, his angel, etc. sees him taken away by govt. officials at the hospital. She freaks out, spends however long hearing the govt. try to cover up the event, then hours later she decides "you know, maybe I should try calling my husband on his cell phone..." And her husband, although a high ranking official of a govt. agency and the most-wanted fugitive in the world, somehow isn't smart enough to know that he can be traced via cell-phone.
- Wikus stealing the spaceship was retarded. What would ever make him think that he could fly an alien spaceship? Or that he would know where and how to land on the mothership, how to find his way around the mothership, what the cure is that he is looking for and how to administer it. For Wikus to think for even a second that he could achieve his goal without Christopher is completely idiotic. It simply wouldn't happen no matter how desperate he is. Christopher was obviously the key to his cure, so he would have NEVER left him behind.
- The gang leader captures Wikus, who then demonstrates that he can actually fire the alien weapons. So what does the the leader do? He lets Wikus slowly back out of the tent while caring a lumbering weapon under one arm? Really? None of the dozens of surrounding Nigerians could have fired a head shot from behind? The gang leader giving him a warning was just laughable at that point.
-The shack where his condition originated has not been quarantined and taken apart by the evil top-secret agency (therefore finding the buried ship)? On the same note, the spaceship that broke off from the mother ship and disappeared for twenty years suddenly reappears. Then after it is shot down, nobody decides to examine or seal off the location of the wreckage? Instead, the child alien is allowed to sit inside the ship and repair the damage while the authorities continue to chase Wikus.
"Moon" is still the best movie of the year.

Hear me out. I saw the flick on a DP screen in a new theatre with a perfect seat. The crowd was cool and I am always jonesing for any decent sci-fi (e.g. loved 'Moon'). My judgment of 'District 9'? Cool but not earth shattering. Positive critics made the flick sound like Moses come down from the mountain. Comments like "You'll see things you've never seen before." turned out to be untrue. I can't think of one thing in the movie I hadn't seen before. Not one. Was it neat? Yeah. Of course. Was it great for the budget? I've never been given 30 million to do something with but I'll take everyone's word for it that for the budget it was amazing. But... was the movie really incredible? No. Not really. With the exception of a couple of explosions that rocked there was nothing that made my eyes pop. Will I see it again and buy it on Blu-ray? Yeah.

I read your review, and was looking forward to the last 20 minutes Harry. But I have to say, it was quite straightforward. A very ugly film, quite devoid of any beauty, and eee het de sid eeefrikan eekcents eeen eet. eet eeez saw aglee. I kind of amalgam of V, and Alien Nation. Nothing spectacular. I thought the political overtones and racial overtones were those of a 15 year old as well. Quite boring.

Because I felt exactly the same way, and had I known going in that it was supposed to be that great maybe the expectation would have done something to how I reacted. I can't imagine seeing something better I like this year either.

I like it when movies have unknowns in them cause you can get lost in the story without seeing the actor in something else. I cant watch Monk without seeing Stottlemeyer as Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs. The tuck-job still haunts me to this day. District 9 was awesome!! Cant wait for part 2!!

Though I didn't much care for the annoying faux documentary/shaky cam thing going on. Woulda been better shot conventionally. First 2/3 was a bit on the slow side but REALLY got rockin' during the final act! CGI creatures were excellent, some of the best I've seen. Great cliffhanger ending which will, no doubt, give us District 10 in 2011. Thumbs up.

Stottlemeyer is Buffalo Bill? thats awesome.<p>
And as for D9 I'll just copy my view from the other TB Best Video Game Movie EVER,
and I don't mean that in a bad way. I wouldn't say it was a masterpiece, had only a couple of cheesy moments. The end was awesome non-stop, thigh slapping, cool ass action. It really felt like a talanted, professional geek made this movie, with the gravity gun lifted straight from Half Life, and I'm sure I'd seen that bullet catcher in something. Even the end where he's fighting in the suit. The whole time I kept thinking, it's like the best game ever, he's even shouting abuse like a gamer would. It was a good movie, great to amazing at times. And I do hope they do a sequal. Why would you not want more of this?<p>
Also I haven't seen Moon yet, which I feel looks less fun but more substantial. Can anyone confirm this?

Especially Harry's. I kept on waiting for it to shift into another gear until I realized it had none. I understand what they were going for in Wikus but he just comes of a bit too Steve Carell from The Office, and a bigger douche on top of that.
The Alien weaponry was awesome and so was the character work done by none other than WETA. I can't find to much to hate about it, but I can't find anything to love either. Basically the same reaction I had after seeing Children of Men so I know I am in the minority here.
The Hurt Locker is STILL the best movie I have seen this year. Everything else is just not on the same level.
And fuck I wanted to love this movie so much but just couldn't. Its like those damn 3d puzzles I know everyone else sees something I just can't.

saw it tonight. While it was overall entertaining, it was extremely slow paced at times. Harry's headline makes it sound like it's the next big thing in film. Goes to show how fucking amateur the dude really is.

Nowhere near to being a sci-fi classic. Not even close. <p>
The political analogies were good but not exactly the kind that require deep thinking or raise questions like Blade Runner of Children of Men. If you're not very smart I'm sure it's genius philsophy.<p>
I'd say it's a great action sci-fi movie, with a unique style & lots of fun, but that's it. <p>
Oh & Harry, Black Hawk Down wasn't about the real world either. It was a fictionalised account with the good guys & bad guys switched.<p>
There was no "liberation", you invaded 'cause they got a democratic president who refused to continue letting you take their oil reserves, essentially enlaving what should be a rich country, into a 3rd world one. <p>
Just saying, if you wanna talk one type of politics & hamitarianism in a particlular movie, you should be careful with your analogies of other movies.

Another bleak distopian world that degenerates into a war movie. I agree that it's interesting, but I found it overly cynical and was also left feeling there were a lot of plot holes. What the hell actually afflicted the aliens causing them to come to Earth at all? Why was "Christopher" the only one trying to get back to the mother ship? Why did he need to salvage this special fluid for 20 years when apparently his own people were giving it away in weapons for cat food? Why couldn't it have been salvaged on the ship before the human cut their way in? If it was because the module fell first, WHY did it fall off without a means of reconnecting? Why did Wikus act like the Prawns were just bugs when he joyfully has their eggs burned yet clearly perceives their language and understands they are sentient? Okay, fine, you think people would be fine with that, great, yet he had a problem later with killing one with its own weapon instead of a pig, so he assigned SOME value to them that he didn't earlier. Where were the advocates for the aliens because you KNOW there would be some. And why could the aliens make weapons so advanced and not use them to break free? I've read online people saying they were drones and the queen was dead, but that was just a guess said in the movie, what happened to her? If Wikus turned into a Prawn because of the spray, does that mean Prawns weren't Prawns once as well? Did the aliens have a caste system? It bewilders me how the holes in this are ignored but the holes in Signs weren't--other than this has more violence and a less happy ending (plus no mention of God), and that's more pleasing to an audience that increasingly likes to celebrate cynicism as the ultimate "too cool for school" fashion statement. Yawn to that. I think this was pretty damn good as a technical achievement, and not badly acted, but the subject of the film was and OD of nihilism.

Yes, what was it about that liquid energy source - it was so omnipotent it might as well have been magic. Why did the energy liquid have a dual function as a potent gene-altering virus?
And how did the alien ship stay floating when it was unpowered...
I have a feeling the nonsensical plot was pasted on as a weak excuse for the director to indulge in guns, robots and his unique slum setting. But you can get shoot-out action and robots in an Xbox game. I want a real story when I see a movie.

Why did Christopher Johnson freeze up in the Biolab when he saw a Prawn victim? Wasn't he used to seeing brutality against Prawns every day in the settlement?
And why was it illegal for humans to kill Prawns, but OK to kill their young? Why wasn't this explained better?

Who actually thinks that Sunshine is great sci-fi? It's a decent movie until the second half rolls around and the crew starts getting chased by Mr. Generic Serial Killer, then it becomes nothing more than your garden variety Alien ripoff.

I haven't seen many sci-fi films that explained every facet of the world they inhabit, so I'm not sure what would have satisfied you guys but very little of the 'holes' you've mentioned ring like genuine holes. From what was said and seen in the story, if you want to be obsessive - and as I consider it one of the very best sci-fi stories I've seen since Close Encounters, I must indulge and defend it in an obsessive manner - you can easily extrapolate answers to your comments.
1. - What the hell actually afflicted the aliens causing them to come to Earth at all? - Perhaps the evident 'virus' that was afflicting the aliens killed of their hierarchy. It is mentioned that what was left were the workers - maybe they were stronger than the leaders and so they survived, and perhaps the ship was programmed in the event of catastrophe to seek out shelter at the nearest survivable planet.
2 - Why was "Christopher" the only one trying to get back to the mother ship? Why did he need to salvage this special fluid for 20 years when apparently his own people were giving it away in weapons for cat food? Why couldn't it have been salvaged on the ship before the human cut their way in? - Perhaps Christopher was the last surviving leader, or the ships pilot - it would explain his seeming elevated intelligence and autonomy compared to the drones. Perhaps the creatures were all too sick before the ship was cut into to have the presence of mind to salvage the fluid. And perhaps the module dropping away was the ships control centre - designed to do so to prevent the ships systems being accessed by anyone other than the leaders of the society. And perhaps the weapons didn't use that fluid - hence him not stripping them for it.
3 - Why did Wikus act like the Prawns were just bugs when he joyfully has their eggs burned yet clearly perceives their language and understands they are sentient? Okay, fine, you think people would be fine with that, great, yet he had a problem later with killing one with its own weapon instead of a pig, so he assigned SOME value to them that he didn't earlier. Where were the advocates for the aliens because you KNOW there would be some. - Understanding their sentience is one thing, having overt sympathy for them is something else. Look at the Nazi's and their treatment of the jews, they knew they were every bit as intelligent or 'human', they just adopted an ideology that SAW them as lesser beings and so were able to mistreat them without thinking too much, in a lot of cases - much as Wikus treats the eggs, which he see's as contributing to overpopulation of the species, something he thinks or is under orders about needing controlling. And seeing the eggs as the same as seeing a grown Prawn is also something else - people have abortions, doesn't mean they can flippantly kill a full grown human. As to advocates for the aliens, it was addressed several times - the crowd protesting possible rights abuses when MNU entered the camp to commence the eviction orders, the evident outrage over the MNU medical experiments caused in the press - the whole film after all isincorporating a documentary about what happened to Wikus and the fallout from the discovery of those experiments.
4 - And why could the aliens make weapons so advanced and not use them to break free? I've read online people saying they were drones and the queen was dead, but that was just a guess said in the movie, what happened to her? - The drones may have put the weapons together some time in the past when under orders, doesn't mean they understand them and how they work - assembly line workers in real life put together all sorts of complex equipment without understanding how it works. It's also sdtated without hierarchy they are aimless and unable to organise themselves so an organised armed insurrection in that case is unlikely. Also, if they were clever enough to do it, they would also be clever enough to understand they had nowehere to go. It's not like they could disappear into the population and expect a better life. And what happened to their leader/s? Well, the workers were all ill on arrival. It's stated their leadership, however it worked, is gone - perhaps with the exception of Christopher - maybe they succumbed to the illness sooner than the workers. And if Christopher was one of the leadership caste, maybe he knew if he was identified as such the humans would be stripping him of any info on how the technology worked. It would make me keep a low profile.
5 - Yes, what was it about that liquid energy source - it was so omnipotent it might as well have been magic. Why did the energy liquid have a dual function as a potent gene-altering virus? And how did the alien ship stay floating when it was unpowered... - There was nothing to suggest the ship was unpowered in the film, just that without the liquid the ship couldn't be operated. Based on the weapons, perhaps their entire technology was based on DNA acceptance hence the 'magical' transformation of Wikus. Was the liquid some form of control technology.....it would seem so, rather than fuel. When it was input into the module, the child was able to control the mothership which would suggest it was a 'key' to the technology rather than the fuel that operated the ship.
This is all supposition on my part but in my defence i'd say my thoughts would fit the supposed 'hole's you've both mentioned. Again, I'm not sure what people expect as every film ever made leaves out history regarding the characters, motivations, the world they inhabit. It seems more that the story didn't jibe with you to some degree, in Cucumbers case it seems he simply didn't like it full stop. But not having everything explained is not the same as having a genuine plot hole, and in that regard I find District 9 to be pretty high on my list of the best films - for me at least. Hell, The Dark Knight was absolutely fellated, rimmed and handjobbed to death on this site and I found it to be average at best, with a whole lot of genuine plot holes compared to anything in District 9. Personal taste goes a long way in seeing or not seeing 'flaws' I guess.

No one gives fuck one about your shitty site bud...peddle your irrelevant smut elsewhere. Cunt. Now..about the movie! It is well done...sure, some people are over-zealously proclaiming it as the be all end all sci fi film. It's not that - but it is smart, quick, ferocious and occassionally thought provoking. The last 20 minutes is as exhilerating as any film in recent years.

Do you think the creatures looked a bit like "The Fly?" I was trying place where I've seen something similar and that came to mind. Really enjoyed the film. I want Wikus to come back - not necessarily as a human.

Generic action pieces stringed together with a few somewhat fresh ideas but overall it was loud annoying, shaky cam, dumb fun for 12 year olds. Oh yeah and the alien says "I won't leave you friend" near the end? Isn't that a tad bit predictable?

was pathetic. By the 40th time that someone's head was headshot and exploded into bloody chunks (which we don't even see the gore of) there were still retards behind me going "OO! DID YOU SEE THAT?". Is that what the adults of today find accepts as entertainment? Same old pony trick over and over again?

I love that films like this pop up every now and then. But to me, the best sci-fi is the kind that takes has something to actually say about life/humanity, but wraps it in sci-fi circumstances. District 9 did not deliver on that, IMO.
Good setup & backstory - but from there, the morality of the situation was never really explored, and that's what I was under the impression the story was *really* about. Only the briefest mention of people protesting the aliens' treatment. We just get humans being complete dicks to the Prawns, an abundance of goop and pus, a throwback to The Fly, and a fairly rousing last half-or-so. There were also some fairly noticeable inconsistencies - like the fact that the hero has no problem torching alien babies, then all of a sudden not wanting to shoot another alien, with no character progression between points A and B.
The impressions I got from what I'd read were that this was really something almost reminiscent of Schindler's List on a certain level - a person acting at his own peril, against massive forces, to do what he can to right a wrong on the scale of genocide. Instead, D9 is like a story where Oskar Schindler somehow gets a Star of David on all his clothes, and enlists the help of a Jew to remove said Stars of David, merely to save his own ass.

Nice to see aliens dont just always head direct for the good ol US. Good set up, story, style (the part documentary worked well), the humour (aliens addicted to cat food whodathunkit )the FX and highly impressed by lead actor (and amateur) Sharlto Copley. I cant think of many movies where the protagnonist is Afrikaans accented. Highly recommend and will be a bluray must-buy.

Easily the best nerd film of this year. I was sceptical when I read Harry's review considering he thought that the heavily flawed Star Trek was so awesome and that he loved Indy 4. Now I fully appreciate the viral marketing done on this.

Really enjoyed it. The only thing I didn't like was the military guy who was chasing him. You know in real life he wouldn't have thought twice to shoot as soon as he had the chance. Other than that, it was a very well done movie. Not the second coming of cinema, but a very enjoyable and occasionally thought provoking movie.

the skilll of peter jacksion is unreal if you havent watched it watch it at the first chance you get it is absolutley brilliant thow i think he over uses the south african accent a little.when they swear it sounds funny too

...triumphant, epic, original...beautiful film making in my opinion. it was a science fiction movie that felt REAL...i know that sounds like an oxymoron LOL. it was perfectly done and i love how they kept relatively quiet until about 2-3 months before it came out. it wasn't like The Dark Knight where i was following it for a year. it just popped up and didn't disappoint. i really like how it is a commentary on us as humans...if aliens were to come to our planet, i can picture our reaction being as such. myself and my friend both agree that the World War Z movie should have the dark, realistic, gritty feel to it that District 9 did. Hollywood...start taking notes!

Did anyone notice the goat logo on the MNU guys? I mean, I really don't want to give this more attention than it deserves... but isn't that a satanic symbol? Baphomet anyone?
Anyway, I thought it to be a really innovative movie with a stunning performance by Cropley and some insane weaponry that literally blew my mind. I really agree that a good film doesn't need high profile actors to be good, nor does it need an insanely high budget.
Oh, and for that Media Messiah: I bet I have a story twist that yours can't beat. So what? If I can get this idea made, we will see, but if not, I can go fuck myself and be bitter about it, but nobody will care. Get it done or continue sucking - but boasting on the internet won't get you anything.

and I was really happy to see that it started out as classic, _real_ science fiction. But then it turned into a typical action movie, all about the explosions and who gets chased and who gets killed. The plot made no sense, but I wouldn't have cared about that if it had stuck with the social issues that it raised. But in the end it was all about the explosions, and the plot just couldn't sustain that.

Well, I saw it today after readin so much about it. Some said its gory and some said its action packed. Posters of it shows thousands of war driods or whatever they are so, I was expecting a huge war movie. I may have anticipated way too much and walked out of the cinema thinking if they will give me a refund. I think its ok movie, good episode if its on Twilight Zone.

I seen D9 in theatres 4 times and it just blew my mind with each viewing.
I don't think anything beats that exosuit climax. It's funny, for a film budgeted at $30 million, that exosuit looked much more realistic than any of Bay's $200+ million Transformers.